Shootings in Paris - MOD NOTE UPDATED - READ OP

Firstly, I hold up my hand now and admit I was duped for too long by 3 or 4 of the countless anti-Muslim hate sites on the 'wild west' that the internet still is. I thought I was getting the inside track on Islam that the main stream media were refusing to broadcast.

I somehow pulled myself out of it :- but the one silver lining from this is:- I can spot people here who are brain-adled by this ugly propaganda from a mile away.

For example, where else would an average Irish person learn about the obscure -for most Muslims- concept of Taqiya post 9/11 except from one of these American or Israeli Zionist stables of Muslim hate.

The Zionists unfortunately are not kidding around - they are playing for very, very big stakes!!

If the people here who are hostile to Islam & Muslims were honest and admitted that they do read one or many of these sites, I posit that this would short-circuit 90% of the discussion on this & similar threads :eek:

Of course, the fact that 7 out of 9? of the Paris degenerates who committed this outrage were of the heritage of former French colonies is a big, big problem – anyway, a very good outline or framework approach to resolve that specific serious issue has been posted on this thread by Bannasidhe a few days ago.

---

Anyway, here are some descriptions and views of one of the worst offenders on the web (from SW): Robert Spencer (of http://www.jihadwatch.org notoriety) the personification of the ugliest, ugliest aspect of the human condition: HATE

 Because Robert Spencer is a fraudulent individual who claims to be a ”scholar” and “expert” on Islam and Muslims, when in fact he is an anti-Muslim polemicist and activist who seeks to foment hate and distrust of all Muslims, especially those living in the West.

 Because Robert Spencer preys on the gullible, confused, and fearful in order to stoke the flames of hate and intolerance in their minds and hearts against Muslims at large, and Islam as a religion – rather than against terrorism and terrorists.

 Because Robert Spencer claims to be so right, everyone is afraid to debate him and prove him wrong; yet, he consistently prefers to play dumb in turning a blind-eye to our calls for a debate, knowing that it would spell the end of his 15 minutes of fraudulent fame and deception.



“[Robert Spencer] has no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity”

“The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism that is promoted and supported by right-wing organizations, who are perpetuating a type of bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice. They are to be viewed with great suspicion by anyone who wishes to find reliable and scholarly information on the subject of Islam.”

“[Robert Spencer] uses the Internet to spread misinformation and hatred of Islam and presents a ‘skewed, one-sided, and inflammatory story that only helps to sow the seed of civilizational conflict’.” - Benazir Bhutto (Late Prime Minister of Pakistan)

“Robert Spencer is an extremist, right-wing anti-Muslim rabble rouser.”

“Mr. Spencer espouses a view of Islam as a system of belief which is essentially violent, undemocratic, totalitarian, exclusive and at war with all non-Muslims. Mr. Spencer in fact goes as far as to equate Islam with fascism.”

“Robert Spencer is an anti-Muslim blogger…And yes, I do mean ‘anti-Muslim’ — Spencer long ago crossed the line from simply criticizing radical Islamists to relentlessly demonizing all Muslims. And the bigoted, hateful comments he allows at his website are beyond disgusting.”

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Old Testament has a fair bit to say about raping virgins (e.g. Numbers 31:7-18) It's not against it but the rapist must marry their victim. The OT doesn't seem to specifically say anything about sex with children, but most girls were married off soon after they had their first period which can be as young as 9 - 'virgins' in a Biblical context means unmarried so the virgins the Israelites are being told to rape are unmarried girls who most likely are pre-pubescent.

There's a lot of jumping to conclusions and guesswork there.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

All Religions of the time is impossible as we do not have the information. Many of the religions do not exist anymore or did not have 'Holy' book of instructions in the way that the Abrahamic Religions do.

There is a passage in the Talmud (Yebhamot 11b: “Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age.” ) that is open to interpretation - Talmudic scholars say it is an allegory, others (mostly anti-Semites such as certain far right web sites) claim the passage is a licence to be a paedophile.

In a website run for and by Jewish victims of sexual abuse there is a discussion on the passage http://jewishsurvivors.blogspot.ie/2005/02/under-talmudic-law-sexual-use-of-girls.html

The Old Testament has a fair bit to say about raping virgins (e.g. Numbers 31:7-18) It's not against it but the rapist must marry their victim. The OT doesn't seem to specifically say anything about sex with children, but most girls were married off soon after they had their first period which can be as young as 9 - 'virgins' in a Biblical context means unmarried so the virgins the Israelites are being told to rape are unmarried girls who most likely are pre-pubescent.

Cool, so all religions are equally garbage and should be outlawed for the mentally ill cults that they are.

"An invisible spaceman and/or his buddies told me to do things!". We really are an idiotic species.