US Ambassador to Libya killed by mob

JustinDee

Laminations wrote: »

Fundamentalism wasn't invented by and isnt limited to Islam. Nevertheless the thread is about Islamic fundamentalism as that's what is causing the recent violence and deaths.

And it is microcosmic in comparison with its own demography. Thats the reason you will get these replies. There is scaremongering about Muslims with limp attempts to justify stereotyping that shouldn't go unanswered. I couldn't give two stuffs about Islam. Really couldn't. It doesn't threaten me. I do take issue with unjustified pigeon-holing however and linking decent everyday folk with the extremist fringe orchestrating said protests. The video is the last on their mind.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

So, you're talking (..........)does in the U.K.

So now you're attempting to shift the goal posts from 'only muslims react that way' to a question of geographical location.

Eggy Baby!

JustinDee wrote: »

Palestinians are on or around the top of this alleged hierarchy of the muslim world (of which your perception seems to limit itself to the Middle East), are they?
How do you think they sit in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt? Top of the ladder? Indonesia or Malaysia?
I think if you look outside these anecdotes, you'll find things very different.

Considering only 20% of Muslims are Arabs, probably not very high

Laminations

JustinDee wrote: »

And it is microcosmic in comparison with its own demography. Thats the reason you will get these replies.

But you've chosen to engage with posters who make these generalisations rather than engage in the debate. The microcosmic 'relative' number is a point to do with stereotyping while the larger 'absolute' number or 'relative to other demographs' is of concern in the debate on Islamic fundamentalism. This isn't about other fundamentalists or Muslims in general. Well maybe it is the latter for some posters but don't let that derail the thread.

As for being a microcosm, it's a point worthy of note but so are RIRA (a microcosm of Irish demograph 0.0001%), should we not discuss them? Should we instead focus on the few posters who say in a thread on RIRA violence have made generalisations about all republicans (of which I consider myself one) or should we take as a given that the violent murdering of the topic of the thread sets them apart from other republicans or Irish in general. Should we start comparing them to ETA or the PLO? Afterall RIRA aren't unique in their violent terrorism so what's so special? Should we make a trite point if someone wants to discuss RIRA in a thread (and not the PLO) that they only care about murders in Ireland?

Islamic fundamentalism has a wider reach, greater incidence and greater ramifications for the West. That makes it worthy of a discussion. It doesn't matter that it's relatively few Muslims, it doesn't matter that there are other fundamentalists. Yes reject stereotypes but don't turn the thread into you feeling you need to 'defend' 1.6 billion Muslims. The vast majority of people can tell the difference.

Mervyn Crawford

Ref Laminations comment:

Islamic fundamentalism is not an issue for 'the West'; but for the whole world.
Indeed the impact of Islamic right-wing religious activism is felt by far most strongly in countries with majority nominal Muslim populations.

.......... Consecutive US administrations backed Mubarak for three decades before he was
toppled by the working class last February. Since the fall of Mubarak, the Obama
administration has relied on the Egyptian military and the Muslim Brotherhood
(MB) to suppress the working class and defend its strategic and economic
interests in the region. It has established close ties to Mursi, a US-trained
scientist and member of the MB, and supported his constitutional coup on August
12, in which he took over the former army junta’s dictatorial powers.

American capital also supports Mursi’s policies. Significantly, the US
embassy protests broke out just as the largest US business delegation to travel
to Egypt since the 1980s was visiting. One of the leaders of the delegation
praised the Brotherhood’s economic program: “We got a clear message that Egypt
is open for business. The delegation will leave impressed with the progress
achieved so far.”

The Islamists are intensifying the pro-business, anti-working class policies
of Mubarak. Last month Cairo officially requested a $4.8 billion loan from the
International Monetary Fund, vowing to further liberalize the economy. On
September 9 the new Egyptian prime minister announced plans to cut the budget
deficit and subsidies.

Fearing he will lose popular support over his anti-working class policies and
his ties to US imperialism, however, Mursi was initially reluctant to crack down
on protests at the US embassy. Protesters were able to climb on the embassy’s
walls and bring down the American flag.

After speaking to Obama, however, Mursi closely followed his instructions
from Washington. He unleashed his security forces against protesters, and the
Brotherhood called off planned mass protests against the anti-Islam film. Mursi
said Obama had told him that it was necessary to put in place “legal measures
which will discourage those seeking to damage relations” between the US and
Egypt.

Now Mursi is preparing to expand the embassy crackdown against the entire
working class. In the last week, a series of strikes has been sweeping Egypt.
Both Mursi and the Obama administration want to prevent a renewed revolutionary
upsurge of Egyptian workers and youth.

On Monday a leading member of the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), the
political arm of the Brotherhood, made clear that the Islamists regard strikes
as a crime. Commenting on an on-going strike by public transport workers in
Cairo, Sabry Amer told Ahram Online that “when workers of a vital
service such as public transport decide to stop working, this is treason to the
country.”

On the same day, security forces disbanded a peaceful sit-in by students at
the Nile University in Cairo and another sit-in by teachers in front of the
cabinet.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=80840677

JustinDee

Laminations wrote: »

But you've chosen to engage with posters who make these generalisations rather than engage in the debate . . . etc . . . etc

I have contributed to the so-called debate, so kindly ease off on the self-appointed modding and quit guessing on my motivations, reasoning or allegedly taking sides. Already have commented on the extreme overreactions, the comparison when Judaism or Christianity is subject of similar insulting lies, and have voiced my opinion that there are elements orchestrating and capitalising upon this stupid effing video, just as the alleged anti-globalisation protests or anti-austerity protests seen in Europe and elsewhere.

Nor am I prohibiting anyone talking about any tenet of discussion. As said, if you adhere to stereotypes, don't be surprised if you get pulled up on it, especially given some of the alleged 'evidence' presented here.

I'm not Muslim myself. I'm not even of a Christian background and couldn't a flying tart for Islam but I do take exception to pro-agendaic bar-stool expertise flung out by anonymous monikers on the internet. In my opinion, scaremongering and rousing should be viewed following a step back, instead of jumping in head-first with preconceptions and presumptions on relevant subject matter.

Maybe its just me, I dunno. I'm fairly confident it isn't. If that was the case, then that would be a worry, in my own opinion.

If you don't agree with my insistance that manners and respect should prevail all else, then so be it. Carry on regardless but don't waste time lecturing posters you might disagree with. We'll live.

Laminations

I'm not making any point on manners or respect. I'm saying 'uniqueness' or 'size' of the violence in relation to the demograph doesn't minimise the problem. White supremacism is relatively small compared to the demograph, it doesn't mean it isn't a serious issue. Suggesting Islamic fundamentalism is a serious issue is not scaremongering. And you really shouldn't criticise others for lecturing when your replies read like a 'telling off' to a bold child.

There are a number of posters who are now just challenging a stereotype that is not being made in any real numbers. One poster makes an overly general comment and the thread turns into a Islam defenders campaign. I've never seen a thread discuss issues with Islamic fundamentalism or broader issues with Islam on these boards that hasn't been turned into a train wreck with criticisms being repackaged and rejected as 'anti-Islam' or 'Islamaphobia'.

JustinDee

Laminations wrote: »

I'm not making any point on manners or respect. I'm saying 'uniqueness' or 'size' of the violence in relation to the demograph doesn't minimise the problem. White supremacism is relatively small compared to the demograph, it doesn't mean it isn't a serious issue. Suggesting Islamic fundamentalism is a serious issue is not scaremongering. And you really shouldn't criticise others for lecturing when your replies read like a 'telling off' to a bold child.

There are a number of posters who are now just challenging a stereotype that is not being made in any real numbers. One poster makes an overly general comment and the thread turns into a Islam defenders campaign. I've never seen a thread discuss issues with Islamic fundamentalism or broader issues with Islam on these boards that hasn't been turned into a train wreck with criticisms being repackaged and rejected as 'anti-Islam' or 'Islamaphobia'.

It has never been and "Islam defenders" thread. If you want to bring broader issues into then fine. If you read a reply that you disagree with, I'd suggest you give others the right to credible reply that you wish for yourself.
If I see someone sweeping a broad brush across an entire demograph in post, of course I'm going to opine on it because I find it unrealistic and that it tends to be pro-agendaic. I don't use the terms you italicise in quote above, nor am I an abject and ill-informed pigeon-holer.
I actually agreed with what bothers you about the protagonists in these stupid and hijacked protests. I lost a very good friend and teammate in the Kuta bombings myself and witnessed some pretty disgusting acts in Indonesia during the late 90s, never mind the hoo-hah that went on in Israel during the first intifada.

Look, just ignore my posts. You obviously disagree with me on stereotyping and pot-stirring as you seem to label my posts as some form of derailment. I honestly don't give stuff and life's too short for this repetition.

Laminations

I don't want to ignore you posts. I happen to think that you make many a valid point. I get it, stereotyping annoys you, probably what set me off is that comments like the following annoy me.

JustinDee wrote: »

You're done. Just park it. We get it. You don't dig Muslims. Quit the pigeon-holing and check people's posting history before you make an even bigger trail of rubbish on these forums.

Aside from it being an overly agressive shout-down, the bit in bold is a smearing comment and unjustified inference from the small sample of posts you have of his opinion.

Again I don't want to ignore you, we're having a discussion. The point I'm making is that stereotyping, manners or respect is not the 'most important aspect here' as Denerick had suggested. It is people abusing religion from murderous outrage.

JustinDee

Laminations wrote: »

I don't want to ignore you posts. I happen to think that you make many a valid point. I get it, stereotyping annoys you, probably what set me off is that comments like the following annoy me.

Aside from it being an overly agressive shout-down, the bit in bold is a smearing comment and unjustified inference from the small sample of posts you have of his opinion.

Report it then. I'm a big boy and can take a talk-down if need be.

wes

Some more news on this via Glenn Greenwald from the Guardian:

Obama officials' spin on Benghazi attack mirrors Bin Laden raid untruths

One thing to note, is the following link from this article:

Report: Never an Anti-American Protest in Benghazi, Only a Planned Attack

CBS reports this morning that witnesses are saying "that there was never an anti-American protest outside of the consulate [in Benghazi, Libya]. Instead, they say, it came under planned attack. That is in direct contradiction to the administration's account of the incident."

So the Obama admin is now saying it was a planned terrorist attack, and we now see reports that there was never a protest at all, just a planned terrorist attack.

Its rather amazing how this whole thing was apparently reported so completely wrongly. So, now we find out that there wasn't even a protest, and that this was a planned terrorist attack. I have to wonder how the media screwed up so badly.

JustinDee

wes wrote: »

Some more news on this via Gleen Greenwald from the Guardian:

Obama officials' spin on Benghazi attack mirrors Bin Laden raid untruths

One thing to note, is the following link from this article:

So the Obama admin is now saying it was a planned terrorist attack, and we now see reports that there was never a protest at all, just a planned terrorist attack.

Its rather amazing how this whole thing was apparently reported so completely wrongly. So, now we find out that there wasn't even a protest, and that this was a planned terrorist attack. I have to wonder how the media screwed up so badly.

You'd be surprised if there was co-ordination involved and was a case of faux-outrage being hijacked for other reasons?
Interesting . . .

wes

JustinDee wrote: »

You'd be surprised if there was co-ordination involved and was a case of faux-outrage being hijacked for other reasons?
Interesting . . .

I am not too sure what happened exactly. There was definetly an pre-planned terrorist attack. Now, whether was a protest or not seems to be in question, at least according to CBS. It may very well been the case of the attackers pretending to be protesters to get in close, and then launching an attack or something like that, but considering the conflicting information, its very hard to tell, and that is just speculation on my part.

Basically, we have gone from a mob attacking the consulate angry over the film, to a pre-planned terrorist attack that may very well have had nothing to do with the film at all. Now, those are the 2 extremes of what may have happened, but its rather stunning, how many different version of events we are seeing.

Jonny7

wes wrote: »

Its rather amazing how this whole thing was apparently reported so completely wrongly. So, now we find out that there wasn't even a protest, and that this was a planned terrorist attack. I have to wonder how the media screwed up so badly.

It's not so much wrong, as "developments". The opening reports linked it directly to a protest, then as more facts came through it seem to be more in tune with a protest inspired attack, and now it seems pretty clear it was a well planned attack using the protest as cover. A dozen or so Libyans were also killed or wounded in the exchange.

30+ people have died so far in the "protests", most of which appear to have been planned.

SamHarris

JustinDee wrote: »

Enough with this arrogant bilge.
I don't need a specially seeded poll to tell me what I experience myself, no more than I need a weighted poll from any think-tank to try and convince me the Irish are good drivers and the roads are safe.
Five years in Israel, seven in Australia, five in Norway, one in Malaysia, two in Greece amongst other regions over the years has educated me enough to avoid lumping every sod I might disagree with into the one barrel, like Irish are avid roman catholics who eat fish on fridays and support the Provos. Moral relativism about how effwads around the world are prodded into reacting in extremis over a daft youTube video doesn't excuse some of the sectarian actions of your own.

Actions of my own? Who the hell do you think I am, and what exactly are the actions that are so very 'sectarian' in your opinion?

Given the subject of the thread it is pretty sad that the only response you have to someone pointing out that Islam has some major issues at the moment is crying about 'sectarianism'.

An excellent illustration of how people attempt to shut down any discussion on the subject by making claims about others character. It demonstrates nothing but your own inability to defend your position.

JustinDee wrote: »

Its not anecdotal "evidence" I'm posting. Just an opinion. This is an internet forum. Not a courtroom. Anonymous monikers like yourself can stir the pot and retroactively dig up anything that suits them via a search engine all you like. Just don't expect not to get pulled up on it from time to time.

Yes, and your opinion is based on anecdotal evidence. If you believe someone should not point this out then you really need to brush up on your debating skills.

Lets try this - someone here claims all the Muslims they have met are extremists and violent, you have a poll that proves it is not true. Their response to this poll is that it is created by people trying to prove Islam is not dangerous, they give no evidence for this other than that the poll proves them wrong. You see the stupidity in this? Good. Now look back at your own posts.

JustinDee wrote: »

You're done. Just park it. We get it. You don't dig Muslims. Quit the pigeon-holing and check people's posting history before you make an even bigger trail of rubbish on these forums.

Wow, you get pretty angry when people point out that your opinion is not as informed as it should be.

I never said anything about individual Muslims.

Its a discussion forum, if you dont like people having different opinions than you then leave.



Its interesting that you say I leave a trail of rubbish but are completly unable to aruge your point without getting furious and resorting to CTs to try and explain away polls that prove my position is based in more reality than your own.

You believe Islam does not have an issue. We get it. Your done.

SamHarris

Nodin wrote: »

Amazing how you won't address the evidence given.

Nothing amazing about it - I ignore it because it was a defence of an accusation never made. No one ever claimed Islam is the only religion who's adherents resort to violence or protest violently about trivial things.

JustinDee

SamHarris wrote: »

Actions of my own? Who the hell do you think I am, and what exactly are the actions that are so very 'sectarian' in your opinion?

Your own demograph.

SamHarris wrote: »

Given the subject of the thread it is pretty sad that the only response you have to someone pointing out that Islam has some major issues at the moment is crying about 'sectarianism'

Sectarianism is another form of fundamentalism.

SamHarris wrote: »

An excellent illustration of how people attempt to shut down any discussion on the subject by making claims about others character. It demonstrates nothing but your own inability to defend your position

I don't care about your character. You're a moniker on the internet. I don't know you from Adamski and most certainly vice versa.

SamHarris wrote: »

Yes, and your opinion is based on anecdotal evidence. If you believe someone should not point this out then you really need to brush up on your debating skills

This is a chat and comment forum. Not a debating hall. I think you'll find that "anecdotal evidence" tends to be from experience when true.

SamHarris wrote: »

Wow, you get pretty angry when people point out that your opinion is not as informed as it should be

I don't get angry on an internet forum. No need to, especially when the amateur psycho-analysis makes an appearance.

SamHarris wrote: »

Its interesting that you say I leave a trail of rubbish but are completly unable to aruge your point without getting furious and resorting to CTs to try and explain away polls that prove my position is based in more reality than your own

Conspiracy theories?? I know how a poll is commissioned, formulated and run, thats all. Waving them about as empirical evidence is surely weaker? (don't bother answering. we'll be here all flipping week).

SamHarris wrote: »

You believe Islam does not have an issue. We get it. Your done.

Where did I even say that??

I'm sure your hot seat over it all trumps the opinions of any old duffer insolent enough to disagree with you. Go on, 'Sam', chuck another poll or op-ed piece to fling a point across.

SamHarris

JustinDee wrote: »

Your own demograph.

Oh so now you know my demograph! Please, what is it?

I thought your position was that people should not be tarred by the actions of a few that hold some of their positions? Or is it the case that only holds true when you deem it necassary? Way to advertise your own hypocrisy, J.

JustinDee wrote: »

Sectarianism is another form of fundamentalism.

Hardly.

If you believe criticising a particular ideology makes you 'sectarian' you should really pick up a dictionary.

JustinDee wrote: »

I don't care about your character. You're a moniker on the internet. I don't know you from Adamski and most certainly vice versa.

Wow. And yet you know my demographic? Try not to contradict yourself in a short post.

JustinDee wrote: »

This is a chat and comment forum. Not a debating hall. I think you'll find that "anecdotal evidence" tends to be from experience when true.

Sure. Anecdotal evidence that contradicts polls and research is still worth ****.

What? No, I think you'll find 'anecdotal evidence' is entirelly self serving and when its right is only right by pure chance.

JustinDee wrote: »

Conspiracy theories?? I know how a poll is commissioned, formulated and run, thats all. Waving them about as empirical evidence is surely weaker? (don't bother answering. we'll be here all flipping week).

And your opinion is the poll was designed to portray Muslims in a certain light. That is a CT.

JustinDee wrote: »

Where did I even say that??

Merely following your lead in creating a caricature of your argument and telling you to leave. Try and keep up. :rolleyes:

JustinDee wrote: »

I'm sure your hot seat over it all trumps the opinions of any old duffer insolent enough to disagree with you. Go on, 'Sam', chuck another poll or op-ed piece to fling a point across.

Try not to take your inferiority complex out on me.

That a poll from one of the most respected polling agencies in the world 'trumps' your opinion should not shock you.


Couldn't be bothered posting another, Im sure 'they' got to them as well.

JustinDee

'Sam', your demograph, which isn't really that difficult to ascertain, doesn't describe your character or even that you subscribe to any particular trait within it. No need to be so touchy.

Don't mistake me for some bleeding heart or conspiracist either. I don't trust polls, particularly from think-tanks of whatever persuasion and I tend not to trust any subjective bandying about of selective findings, even if they suited my viewpoint.

This doesn't make me feel "inferior" to you or even superior. I just disagree with your posts. Again, opinion being the operative term here.

Nodin

SamHarris wrote: »

Nothing amazing about it - I ignore it because it was a defence of an accusation never made. No one ever claimed Islam is the only religion who's adherents resort to violence or protest violently about trivial things.

Actually they - or, to be precise you - did

"'why are Muslims the only group to react in this way, "
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80830158&postcount=186

...hence me going on about it.

Black Swan

MOD WARNING:
Please focus on making meaningful contributions to the thread topic, and not each other. Posters that get "too personal" violate our charter and may be carded.

SamHarris

Nodin wrote: »

Actually they - or, to be precise you - did

"'why are Muslims the only group to react in this way, "
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80830158&postcount=186

...hence me going on about it.

Typical :rolleyes:

Nice bit of 'selective quoting' - "'why are Muslims the only group to react in this way, multiple times, to nearly unheard of media in other countries".

The level of violence, its widespread geographical nature, the fact that this is far from the only time this type of reaction has taken place, the intensity and length of the protests are all important in differentiating it from other religious outbursts.

Like Ive said a dozen times it is a minority that actually carries out violent acts, supported by a much larger minority that mirrors their opinion but do not seem to act on them in the same fashion.

Its telling that the only defence people now have to the claims made against Islam are strawmen and misrepresentation.

This particular wave of violence is not why I (and many others) have made the judgment that there is something fundamentaly wrong with particular strains of Islam. This is not some abberation - it is emblamatic of a much larger problem that has been stewing for years.

SamHarris

JustinDee wrote: »

'Sam', your demograph, which isn't really that difficult to ascertain, doesn't describe your character or even that you subscribe to any particular trait within it. No need to be so touchy.

The demograph that means I have carried out 'sectarian acts' doesnt describe my character? Trust me, I dont care at all. Just pointing out your inability to develop a point without contradicting youself.

Im curious, what is this 'demograph' anyway? The one that believes there are issues within Islam that need to be discussed? So anyone that has been conscious at any time in the last 20 years?

You havent had an argument to begin with, you just got unnecassarily angry and embarrassed yourself. Its fine, just drop it.

If anyone is so convinced criticising Islam is tantamount to a personal attack on every Muslim they really shouldn't come onto a forum.

Nodin

SamHarris wrote: »

Typical :rolleyes:

Nice bit of 'selective quoting' - "'why are Muslims the only group to react in this way, multiple times, to nearly unheard of media in other countries".
.

Nothing selective about it. Your meaning rings clear.

Maybe, and in a thread I dont mind generalisations being pointed out as such. But if you read for example al Jazeera or al Arabiya (english versions) they are similiarly devoted to dealing with 'why are Muslims portrayed so negativly' and never 'why are Muslims the only group to react in this way, multiple times, to nearly unheard of media in other countries?'.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80830158&postcount=186

RandomName2

The thread seems to be diverging into the question of whether the feelings and vehemence expressed in these protests is intrinsic to Islam, or whether it is only a microcosm of a very large and complicated set of different sects and cultures.

Funny really cuz elsewhere the debate elsewhere is free speech VS sensitivity.

These protests are clearly pretty crazy. Sure, they are coloured somewhat by complicated views in these countries concerning the West and US foreign policy in particular. However, we must look at the bottom line and again it is a case of an absolutely meaningless issue being used as a virtual casus belli among the mobs involved. Mobs, mind you, not governments or even groups ('cept Taliban).

SamHarris

Nodin wrote: »

Nothing selective about it. Your meaning rings clear.


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=80830158&postcount=186

Well then you read it wrong, or I was unclear. it was a flippant comment made about how it is being reported in media that caters to having an Arab/ muslim view point. They are actually very similiar to your own arguments - evasive and entirelly dedicated to focusing on issues that are not the real problem. Again - anyone who points out a problem with Islam are instantly picked through to try and find evidence of their bigotry, the issue of Islam itself is left completly undiscussed.

Terms like 'rascism' are used by people like Fisk, trying desperatly to attach the taboo rightly attached to blaming issues on race and attempting to use it to create a barrier around what is an ideology, a set of ideas, something that is entirelly open to be derided or criticed, that can have extreme effects both positive and negative. The sad part is they are effective - if it were a political movement or an 'unprotected' religion such as sceintology that had the same effects throughout the world (on womens rights, free speech and security) there would be unending entirelly valid criticisms.

Your not going to convince me I meant something else in my own comment. Its a strawman, drop it.

Cant believe the same things are being said page 16 in a thread about an ambassador being murdered :rolleyes: We get it. Every Muslim is not a killer/psycho. Move on.


What media outlets do you believe are reporting on the violence from within the Muslim community unfairly?

Do you believe there is not a fundamental problem in Islam at this moment? Do you believe it is being discussed in the manner in which it should be?

You seem to believe there are other relgions that cause the same issues over such a wide geographical area and in many different nations. Which religions are these?


I'm sure its very irritating for Muslims to have their religion discussed as if it is not a message sent by god. But too bad for them really. The effects are too widely seen, too common and too extreme for it to be ignored on the grounds that it hurts their feelings.

Very clearly every poll and research done into the matter shows it is not a small problem caused by a tiny minority but instead ideas that have enromous pull throughout the world.

SamHarris

RandomName2 wrote: »

These protests are clearly pretty crazy. Sure, they are coloured somewhat by complicated views in these countries concerning the West and US foreign policy in particular. However, we must look at the bottom line and again it is a case of an absolutely meaningless issue being used as a virtual casus belli among the mobs involved. Mobs, mind you, not governments or even groups ('cept Taliban).

I dont buy the theory that the protests have more to do with US policy than it does with the movie. The protestors are pretty unequivocal, and the reaction to the Danish cartoons shows the lie to the theory.

I wouldnt be surprised if there is not enormous frustration that is created by the relative position of Muslim states in the world in comparrison to the West, but given the same groups intransigence to things like the Syrian slaughter taking place right now it is purely bad speculation that brings about the idea it is about Western abuses.

Nodin

SamHarris wrote: »

Well then you read it wrong, or I was unclear. it was a flippant comment made about how it is being reported in media that caters to having an Arab/ muslim view point. They are actually very similiar to your own arguments - evasive and entirelly dedicated to focusing on issues that are not the real problem. Again - anyone who points out a problem with Islam are instantly picked through to try and find evidence of their bigotry, the issue of Islam itself is left completly undiscussed.....................

I'd suggest that - in the kindest light - it was a 'freudian slip'.

SamHarris

Nodin wrote: »

I'd suggest that - in the kindest light - it was a 'freudian slip'.

Very clearly an attempt to poison the well when no valid counter arguments are available.

Nodin

SamHarris wrote: »

Very clearly an attempt to poison the well when no valid counter arguments are available.

I made the counter-arguments earlier. You ignored them.