Terrorism

[KSMountain]

Hmmm, Arraya, I gotta lean more towards surveyor’s side.

There’s a saying, maybe it’s from Huntington’s “Clash of civilizations” paper (easily found online):
“Islam has bloody borders”

And it turns out to be true – there are islamic-related conflicts going on all *over* the world. Part of this I think is in the nature of Islam that *explicitly* does not separate religion and government.

There are not as many folks trying to overthrow governments in the name of Christianity, as far as I know. In fact didn’t Jesus (per the religion) say “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s”? That to me seems like a directive to accept whatever host government you may fall under, and is a *clear difference* from Islam.

You accuse surveyor of being dogmatic, but you also should not close your mind to the idea that different religions might have different tenets – they’re not all identical!

[Arraya]

Preacher surveyor just can’t stop preaching his deep deep faith of universal violence of Islam. He decrees all muslims be violent to be true. Even if not all muslims see it his way, he can’t stop preaching his faith. Don’t try and reason with him about his faith because it will not work.

For those of you that don’t like their pre-packaged terrorist porn jammed up their ass in a holy enema like the preacher.

Here is a good overview of the inconsistencies of the fort hood shooting media coverage.

Ft. Hood story full of holes
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/ft-hood-story-full-of-holes.html
Any topic that can be construed as a conspiracy theory is a writers’ worst nightmare. That label has negative connotations and writing about anything that can be put in that category usually creates more problems than it is worth. It generates hate mail from both sides of the political spectrum and that is a headache that most writers would rather not deal with.

One of the ironies in dealing with the plethora of information that is available through print, television and electronic media is that it often does not add up and at times is contradictory. The more information there is, the more inconsistencies that can be found. That does not make any topic a conspiracy theory, it just makes it what it is…questionable. A good example is what allegedly happened at Ft. Hood last week.

[Arraya]

Preacher surveyor just can’t stop preaching his deep deep faith of universal violence of Islam. He decrees all muslims be violent to be true. Even if not all muslims see it his way, he can’t stop preaching his faith. Don’t try and reason with him about his faith because it will not work.

For those of you that don’t like their pre-packaged terrorist porn jammed up their ass in a holy enema like the preacher.

Here is a good overview of the inconsistencies of the fort hood shooting media coverage.

Ft. Hood story full of holes
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/ft-hood-story-full-of-holes.html
Any topic that can be construed as a conspiracy theory is a writers’ worst nightmare. That label has negative connotations and writing about anything that can be put in that category usually creates more problems than it is worth. It generates hate mail from both sides of the political spectrum and that is a headache that most writers would rather not deal with.

One of the ironies in dealing with the plethora of information that is available through print, television and electronic media is that it often does not add up and at times is contradictory. The more information there is, the more inconsistencies that can be found. That does not make any topic a conspiracy theory, it just makes it what it is…questionable. A good example is what allegedly happened at Ft. Hood last week.

[Arraya]

Preacher surveyor just can’t stop preaching his deep deep faith of universal violence of Islam. He decrees all muslims be violent to be true. Even if not all muslims see it his way, he can’t stop preaching his faith. Don’t try and reason with him about his faith because it will not work.

For those of you that don’t like their pre-packaged terrorist porn jammed up their ass in a holy enema like the preacher.

Here is a good overview of the inconsistencies of the fort hood shooting media coverage.

Ft. Hood story full of holes
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/ft-hood-story-full-of-holes.html
Any topic that can be construed as a conspiracy theory is a writers’ worst nightmare. That label has negative connotations and writing about anything that can be put in that category usually creates more problems than it is worth. It generates hate mail from both sides of the political spectrum and that is a headache that most writers would rather not deal with.

One of the ironies in dealing with the plethora of information that is available through print, television and electronic media is that it often does not add up and at times is contradictory. The more information there is, the more inconsistencies that can be found. That does not make any topic a conspiracy theory, it just makes it what it is…questionable. A good example is what allegedly happened at Ft. Hood last week.

[Arraya]

Preacher surveyor just can’t stop preaching his deep deep faith of universal violence of Islam. He decrees all muslims be violent to be true. Even if not all muslims see it his way, he can’t stop preaching his faith. Don’t try and reason with him about his faith because it will not work.

For those of you that don’t like their pre-packaged terrorist porn jammed up their ass in a holy enema like the preacher.

Here is a good overview of the inconsistencies of the fort hood shooting media coverage.

Ft. Hood story full of holes
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/ft-hood-story-full-of-holes.html
Any topic that can be construed as a conspiracy theory is a writers’ worst nightmare. That label has negative connotations and writing about anything that can be put in that category usually creates more problems than it is worth. It generates hate mail from both sides of the political spectrum and that is a headache that most writers would rather not deal with.

One of the ironies in dealing with the plethora of information that is available through print, television and electronic media is that it often does not add up and at times is contradictory. The more information there is, the more inconsistencies that can be found. That does not make any topic a conspiracy theory, it just makes it what it is…questionable. A good example is what allegedly happened at Ft. Hood last week.

[Arraya]

Preacher surveyor just can’t stop preaching his deep deep faith of universal violence of Islam. He decrees all muslims be violent to be true. Even if not all muslims see it his way, he can’t stop preaching his faith. Don’t try and reason with him about his faith because it will not work.

For those of you that don’t like their pre-packaged terrorist porn jammed up their ass in a holy enema like the preacher.

Here is a good overview of the inconsistencies of the fort hood shooting media coverage.

Ft. Hood story full of holes
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl/ft-hood-story-full-of-holes.html
Any topic that can be construed as a conspiracy theory is a writers’ worst nightmare. That label has negative connotations and writing about anything that can be put in that category usually creates more problems than it is worth. It generates hate mail from both sides of the political spectrum and that is a headache that most writers would rather not deal with.

One of the ironies in dealing with the plethora of information that is available through print, television and electronic media is that it often does not add up and at times is contradictory. The more information there is, the more inconsistencies that can be found. That does not make any topic a conspiracy theory, it just makes it what it is…questionable. A good example is what allegedly happened at Ft. Hood last week.

[surveyor]

http://www.meforum.org/2134/words-matter-in-the-war-on-terror

First, it needs to be borne in mind that Sunni Islam is wholly dependent on the various rulings (ahkam) of the so-called four schools of jurisprudence (al-madhahib al-arba’). I am currently reading an Arabic manual called Al-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw’ al-Kitab wa al-Sunna (“The Jihadi Upbringing in Light of the Koran and Sunna”), written by one Sheikh Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil. After closely examining the word “jihad,” he concludes that “jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and then they refuse.”

The book also contains terse summaries of the word “jihad” from each of the four schools of jurisprudence, which have the final say as to how Islam — or in this case, jihad — is articulated: According to the Hanafis, jihad is “extreme and strenuous warfare in the path of Allah, with one’s life, wealth, and tongue — a call to the true religion [Islam] and war to whoever refuses to accept it”; according to the Malikis, jihad is “when a Muslim fights an infidel in order that Allah’s word [Sharia] reigns supreme”; according to the Shafi’is, jihad is “fiercely fighting infidels”; and, according to the austere Hanbalis, it is “fighting infidels.” (Note: “infidels,” or kuffar, simply means non-Muslims.)

In short, the “traditional” meaning of jihad is offensive warfare to spread Islamic hegemony — period. This is doctrinally, textually, historically, and consensually demonstrable. At any rate, who probably better understands what jihad means, the non-Muslim Jeffrey Vordermark or the Muslim Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil? More to the point, whose definition will Muslims actually take seriously?

[surveyor]

http://www.meforum.org/2134/words-matter-in-the-war-on-terror

First, it needs to be borne in mind that Sunni Islam is wholly dependent on the various rulings (ahkam) of the so-called four schools of jurisprudence (al-madhahib al-arba’). I am currently reading an Arabic manual called Al-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw’ al-Kitab wa al-Sunna (“The Jihadi Upbringing in Light of the Koran and Sunna”), written by one Sheikh Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil. After closely examining the word “jihad,” he concludes that “jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and then they refuse.”

The book also contains terse summaries of the word “jihad” from each of the four schools of jurisprudence, which have the final say as to how Islam — or in this case, jihad — is articulated: According to the Hanafis, jihad is “extreme and strenuous warfare in the path of Allah, with one’s life, wealth, and tongue — a call to the true religion [Islam] and war to whoever refuses to accept it”; according to the Malikis, jihad is “when a Muslim fights an infidel in order that Allah’s word [Sharia] reigns supreme”; according to the Shafi’is, jihad is “fiercely fighting infidels”; and, according to the austere Hanbalis, it is “fighting infidels.” (Note: “infidels,” or kuffar, simply means non-Muslims.)

In short, the “traditional” meaning of jihad is offensive warfare to spread Islamic hegemony — period. This is doctrinally, textually, historically, and consensually demonstrable. At any rate, who probably better understands what jihad means, the non-Muslim Jeffrey Vordermark or the Muslim Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil? More to the point, whose definition will Muslims actually take seriously?

[surveyor]

http://www.meforum.org/2134/words-matter-in-the-war-on-terror

First, it needs to be borne in mind that Sunni Islam is wholly dependent on the various rulings (ahkam) of the so-called four schools of jurisprudence (al-madhahib al-arba’). I am currently reading an Arabic manual called Al-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw’ al-Kitab wa al-Sunna (“The Jihadi Upbringing in Light of the Koran and Sunna”), written by one Sheikh Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil. After closely examining the word “jihad,” he concludes that “jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and then they refuse.”

The book also contains terse summaries of the word “jihad” from each of the four schools of jurisprudence, which have the final say as to how Islam — or in this case, jihad — is articulated: According to the Hanafis, jihad is “extreme and strenuous warfare in the path of Allah, with one’s life, wealth, and tongue — a call to the true religion [Islam] and war to whoever refuses to accept it”; according to the Malikis, jihad is “when a Muslim fights an infidel in order that Allah’s word [Sharia] reigns supreme”; according to the Shafi’is, jihad is “fiercely fighting infidels”; and, according to the austere Hanbalis, it is “fighting infidels.” (Note: “infidels,” or kuffar, simply means non-Muslims.)

In short, the “traditional” meaning of jihad is offensive warfare to spread Islamic hegemony — period. This is doctrinally, textually, historically, and consensually demonstrable. At any rate, who probably better understands what jihad means, the non-Muslim Jeffrey Vordermark or the Muslim Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil? More to the point, whose definition will Muslims actually take seriously?

[surveyor]

http://www.meforum.org/2134/words-matter-in-the-war-on-terror

First, it needs to be borne in mind that Sunni Islam is wholly dependent on the various rulings (ahkam) of the so-called four schools of jurisprudence (al-madhahib al-arba’). I am currently reading an Arabic manual called Al-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw’ al-Kitab wa al-Sunna (“The Jihadi Upbringing in Light of the Koran and Sunna”), written by one Sheikh Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil. After closely examining the word “jihad,” he concludes that “jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and then they refuse.”

The book also contains terse summaries of the word “jihad” from each of the four schools of jurisprudence, which have the final say as to how Islam — or in this case, jihad — is articulated: According to the Hanafis, jihad is “extreme and strenuous warfare in the path of Allah, with one’s life, wealth, and tongue — a call to the true religion [Islam] and war to whoever refuses to accept it”; according to the Malikis, jihad is “when a Muslim fights an infidel in order that Allah’s word [Sharia] reigns supreme”; according to the Shafi’is, jihad is “fiercely fighting infidels”; and, according to the austere Hanbalis, it is “fighting infidels.” (Note: “infidels,” or kuffar, simply means non-Muslims.)

In short, the “traditional” meaning of jihad is offensive warfare to spread Islamic hegemony — period. This is doctrinally, textually, historically, and consensually demonstrable. At any rate, who probably better understands what jihad means, the non-Muslim Jeffrey Vordermark or the Muslim Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil? More to the point, whose definition will Muslims actually take seriously?

[surveyor]

http://www.meforum.org/2134/words-matter-in-the-war-on-terror

First, it needs to be borne in mind that Sunni Islam is wholly dependent on the various rulings (ahkam) of the so-called four schools of jurisprudence (al-madhahib al-arba’). I am currently reading an Arabic manual called Al-Tarbiya al-Jihadiya fi Daw’ al-Kitab wa al-Sunna (“The Jihadi Upbringing in Light of the Koran and Sunna”), written by one Sheikh Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil. After closely examining the word “jihad,” he concludes that “jihad is when Muslims wage war on infidels, after having called on them to embrace Islam or at least pay tribute [jizya] and live in submission, and then they refuse.”

The book also contains terse summaries of the word “jihad” from each of the four schools of jurisprudence, which have the final say as to how Islam — or in this case, jihad — is articulated: According to the Hanafis, jihad is “extreme and strenuous warfare in the path of Allah, with one’s life, wealth, and tongue — a call to the true religion [Islam] and war to whoever refuses to accept it”; according to the Malikis, jihad is “when a Muslim fights an infidel in order that Allah’s word [Sharia] reigns supreme”; according to the Shafi’is, jihad is “fiercely fighting infidels”; and, according to the austere Hanbalis, it is “fighting infidels.” (Note: “infidels,” or kuffar, simply means non-Muslims.)

In short, the “traditional” meaning of jihad is offensive warfare to spread Islamic hegemony — period. This is doctrinally, textually, historically, and consensually demonstrable. At any rate, who probably better understands what jihad means, the non-Muslim Jeffrey Vordermark or the Muslim Abd al-Aziz bin Nasir al-Jalil? More to the point, whose definition will Muslims actually take seriously?

[urbanrealtor]

[/quote][quote=surveyor]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.” [/quote]Not at all clear how this makes logical (or even grammatical) sense[quote=surveyor]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.
[/quote]
Your statement was not that the Jihadists believe these things.
Your statement was that the Koran requires all Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims (remember the “per-the-Koran” circular non-logic above?). Also, you made specific statements about the religious requirements of worshipers. You specifically said that muslims are required to wage war.
That is not a statement criticizing a religion or component thereof (eg: “The concept of confessional redemption implies a lack of self-responsibility”) but instead normative criticism of members of an entire religion (more akin to: “Protestant girls give it up more easily” or “Jews are cheap”). And yeah, that qualifies as bigoted.

[quote=surveyor]

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.[/quote]No.
See, you said that Muslims are required to wage war. That means that by your logic those not waging war are not fulfilling requirements and are therefore not Muslims or at least not pious. Your distinction piety in with extremism and makes pacifists into non-compliant Muslims. [quote=surveyor]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. [/quote]
Are you kidding?
I love debating bigots like you.
It gives me a rhetorical hard-on.
I honestly hope we can keep this going through the new year.

[quote=surveyor]

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.
[/quote]
I don’t demonize you.
I just think your bigoted statements should not be treated with kid gloves.
The fact that you have supported this bigotry using authors that are roundly and widely criticized as being way outside the canon of historical academia is honestly rather funny.
[quote=surveyor]
Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.[/quote]

While you may take some items as insults or name calling, its not like I am calling you douchebag (regardless of my opinions on that subject).
I am labeling things in a way that is factually defensible.

You really don’t seem to focus on facts.
Your comments seem focused on your own wrong-headed interpretation of the Koran and bolstered by other non-canon, wrong-headed interpretations. EG: You cited a blogger’s opinion piece and dime-store exegesis of what sounded like “Islam for dummies”.

Really, a troll interpreting sacred text and citing a blogger to back it up is pretty thin. I think its a stretch calling that a fact.

If you took a quote from a specific Jihadist and said “look, here is an example of what an extreme component of Islam likes to say and probably believes” that would be a strong and rational statement.
However, that is not what you have done.

Your facts are named ironically.

However, I do find your sauce protein-filled and delicious.

[urbanrealtor]

[/quote][quote=surveyor]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.” [/quote]Not at all clear how this makes logical (or even grammatical) sense[quote=surveyor]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.
[/quote]
Your statement was not that the Jihadists believe these things.
Your statement was that the Koran requires all Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims (remember the “per-the-Koran” circular non-logic above?). Also, you made specific statements about the religious requirements of worshipers. You specifically said that muslims are required to wage war.
That is not a statement criticizing a religion or component thereof (eg: “The concept of confessional redemption implies a lack of self-responsibility”) but instead normative criticism of members of an entire religion (more akin to: “Protestant girls give it up more easily” or “Jews are cheap”). And yeah, that qualifies as bigoted.

[quote=surveyor]

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.[/quote]No.
See, you said that Muslims are required to wage war. That means that by your logic those not waging war are not fulfilling requirements and are therefore not Muslims or at least not pious. Your distinction piety in with extremism and makes pacifists into non-compliant Muslims. [quote=surveyor]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. [/quote]
Are you kidding?
I love debating bigots like you.
It gives me a rhetorical hard-on.
I honestly hope we can keep this going through the new year.

[quote=surveyor]

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.
[/quote]
I don’t demonize you.
I just think your bigoted statements should not be treated with kid gloves.
The fact that you have supported this bigotry using authors that are roundly and widely criticized as being way outside the canon of historical academia is honestly rather funny.
[quote=surveyor]
Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.[/quote]

While you may take some items as insults or name calling, its not like I am calling you douchebag (regardless of my opinions on that subject).
I am labeling things in a way that is factually defensible.

You really don’t seem to focus on facts.
Your comments seem focused on your own wrong-headed interpretation of the Koran and bolstered by other non-canon, wrong-headed interpretations. EG: You cited a blogger’s opinion piece and dime-store exegesis of what sounded like “Islam for dummies”.

Really, a troll interpreting sacred text and citing a blogger to back it up is pretty thin. I think its a stretch calling that a fact.

If you took a quote from a specific Jihadist and said “look, here is an example of what an extreme component of Islam likes to say and probably believes” that would be a strong and rational statement.
However, that is not what you have done.

Your facts are named ironically.

However, I do find your sauce protein-filled and delicious.

[urbanrealtor]

[/quote][quote=surveyor]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.” [/quote]Not at all clear how this makes logical (or even grammatical) sense[quote=surveyor]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.
[/quote]
Your statement was not that the Jihadists believe these things.
Your statement was that the Koran requires all Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims (remember the “per-the-Koran” circular non-logic above?). Also, you made specific statements about the religious requirements of worshipers. You specifically said that muslims are required to wage war.
That is not a statement criticizing a religion or component thereof (eg: “The concept of confessional redemption implies a lack of self-responsibility”) but instead normative criticism of members of an entire religion (more akin to: “Protestant girls give it up more easily” or “Jews are cheap”). And yeah, that qualifies as bigoted.

[quote=surveyor]

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.[/quote]No.
See, you said that Muslims are required to wage war. That means that by your logic those not waging war are not fulfilling requirements and are therefore not Muslims or at least not pious. Your distinction piety in with extremism and makes pacifists into non-compliant Muslims. [quote=surveyor]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. [/quote]
Are you kidding?
I love debating bigots like you.
It gives me a rhetorical hard-on.
I honestly hope we can keep this going through the new year.

[quote=surveyor]

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.
[/quote]
I don’t demonize you.
I just think your bigoted statements should not be treated with kid gloves.
The fact that you have supported this bigotry using authors that are roundly and widely criticized as being way outside the canon of historical academia is honestly rather funny.
[quote=surveyor]
Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.[/quote]

While you may take some items as insults or name calling, its not like I am calling you douchebag (regardless of my opinions on that subject).
I am labeling things in a way that is factually defensible.

You really don’t seem to focus on facts.
Your comments seem focused on your own wrong-headed interpretation of the Koran and bolstered by other non-canon, wrong-headed interpretations. EG: You cited a blogger’s opinion piece and dime-store exegesis of what sounded like “Islam for dummies”.

Really, a troll interpreting sacred text and citing a blogger to back it up is pretty thin. I think its a stretch calling that a fact.

If you took a quote from a specific Jihadist and said “look, here is an example of what an extreme component of Islam likes to say and probably believes” that would be a strong and rational statement.
However, that is not what you have done.

Your facts are named ironically.

However, I do find your sauce protein-filled and delicious.

[urbanrealtor]

[/quote][quote=surveyor]

Ah, but you missed a VERY important part of the quote. Allow me to illustrate:

[quote=surveyor]All muslims are required, per the koran, to wage war against the unbelievers. Luckily, not all muslims are interested in waging war, but they are required to do so per the koran (sic.).[/quote]

The previous statement established that according to the koran, it was required for muslims to wage war against unbelievers. By me stating they are required to do so, it is because it is stated in the koran. Many of the jihadists will tell you that is why they are going to war because they are required to per the koran, as I have “reported.” [/quote]Not at all clear how this makes logical (or even grammatical) sense[quote=surveyor]

Oh, so if I talk about a religion in a negative way, I’m supposed to be a bigot? If I report on what jihadists say about their own koran or if I tell you what the koran says, I’m supposed to be a bigot? Nice try dan.
[/quote]
Your statement was not that the Jihadists believe these things.
Your statement was that the Koran requires all Muslims to wage war on non-Muslims (remember the “per-the-Koran” circular non-logic above?). Also, you made specific statements about the religious requirements of worshipers. You specifically said that muslims are required to wage war.
That is not a statement criticizing a religion or component thereof (eg: “The concept of confessional redemption implies a lack of self-responsibility”) but instead normative criticism of members of an entire religion (more akin to: “Protestant girls give it up more easily” or “Jews are cheap”). And yeah, that qualifies as bigoted.

[quote=surveyor]

Because I even said not all muslims want to go to war, so there was a distinction between the individuals practicing the religion and the tenets of a religion being practiced by islamofacists.[/quote]No.
See, you said that Muslims are required to wage war. That means that by your logic those not waging war are not fulfilling requirements and are therefore not Muslims or at least not pious. Your distinction piety in with extremism and makes pacifists into non-compliant Muslims. [quote=surveyor]

By trying to portray me as a bigot, you were attempting to stifle debate. [/quote]
Are you kidding?
I love debating bigots like you.
It gives me a rhetorical hard-on.
I honestly hope we can keep this going through the new year.

[quote=surveyor]

And this is your favorite tactic. Instead of debating the facts you throw out “bigot” or “fringe-author”. Your tendency to demonize any who disagree with you instead of debating the facts, that is what makes you a name-caller. That is not a personal attack, such as your calling me a bigot. That is your debating strategy.
[/quote]
I don’t demonize you.
I just think your bigoted statements should not be treated with kid gloves.
The fact that you have supported this bigotry using authors that are roundly and widely criticized as being way outside the canon of historical academia is honestly rather funny.
[quote=surveyor]
Weak sauce, dan. As always.

Because no matter what you call me, it doesn’t change what the koran says, what the jihadists say, and your inability to debate the facts.[/quote]

While you may take some items as insults or name calling, its not like I am calling you douchebag (regardless of my opinions on that subject).
I am labeling things in a way that is factually defensible.

You really don’t seem to focus on facts.
Your comments seem focused on your own wrong-headed interpretation of the Koran and bolstered by other non-canon, wrong-headed interpretations. EG: You cited a blogger’s opinion piece and dime-store exegesis of what sounded like “Islam for dummies”.

Really, a troll interpreting sacred text and citing a blogger to back it up is pretty thin. I think its a stretch calling that a fact.

If you took a quote from a specific Jihadist and said “look, here is an example of what an extreme component of Islam likes to say and probably believes” that would be a strong and rational statement.
However, that is not what you have done.

Your facts are named ironically.

However, I do find your sauce protein-filled and delicious.

[Author]

Posts