The Student Room Group

Oldham Muslims plan to kill Manchester Jews

Scroll to see replies

Reply 120
Hardly a surprise when 37% of so-called 'British' Muslims polled, said it was justified to target the British Jewish community.

Makes no difference to the left. The rabid anti-Israeli left wing movement will still march shoulder to shoulder with their Islamist allies.
Reply 121
Original post by Chindits
Hardly a surprise when 37% of so-called 'British' .


Link Please.
Reply 122
Original post by prog2djent
Link Please.


It was originally a Times article roughly around 2006. It was removed around 12 months ago, which took most of the links out with it.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=37%25+muslims+target+jews

Have a sift through and see if you can find something.

A channel 4 poll by YouGuv of British Muslims showed 1 in 4 sympathised with the London bombers.
Reply 123
1. didn't dodge anything, Read my post again, I said, THERE WAS NO MENTION OF YEARS.

Learn to read.

2.No it isnt' beside the point because according to your lies and your pathetic sources, you claim he said 'wipe Israel off the map'

Number one the didn't say Israel, he said the regime occupying Al Quds ie the Israeli REGIME not Israel itself, you may beliEve he means Israel itrself but that is not what he said, he said REGIME.

Number two more importanty if he said wipe off the map, where in you source is the word NAGSHEH (which means MAP in Farsi) in your source?

You cannot claim he said wipe off the map and then refuse to show me where the Farsi word for map is in his speech.

Stop your lies, stop your propaganda, becaase you are not going to get away with lying and squirming your way out of this one with me.

When you can show me the word Naghsheh (map) in his speech then reply, other wise do not bother, you are wasting my time with your lies.
Original post by Chazzer66
He's right though. Muslims (on your basis illegally) invaded Christian Spain. So what if the Jews there supported this, the Jews were not the majority and so the majority opposed the Muslims, hence you got kicked out in the reconquista. The Catholics of France and Spain united and kicked you out, but of course This Was A Bad Thing, unlike if the Arabs finally got their act together and defeated the 7 million Jews of Israel :wink:


I hope you're not like Rat Bag, who can't debate, cannot accept facts or evidences, can't back his own points up, uses genetic fallacies, and then once he's been destroyed in debates, cries and spams your pm. And wastes a huge amount of time, and boy did I waste too much of it yesterday.

Anyways, to answer your question;

1. That quote was an unbiased one (Non-Muslim), to show that Muslims invaded and helped the oppressed Jews and various Christian sects who were considered "heratics".

Otherwise from the Islamic account, Christian chief, Julian, went to Musa ibn Nusair (who was North African leader at that time) to ask for help against Rodrick (who was a tyrannical visigoth ruler).

2. The majority "did not oppose the invasion", it's well accepted that Tariq landed in spain and so easily defeated the standing army Rodrick brought around. (In fact, there was hardly any resistence except for this one small battle).

The reason the majority weren't opposed to the new rule is because of the terms Muslims provided which contrasted the harsh conditions placed in by the visigoths.

I would recommend you watch this documentary which touches on the subject pretty well;

[video="youtube;G_N27wqbdlI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_N27wqbdlI[/video]

^Watch the above video, it's excellent and even gives the input of many Spanish Historian Experts as well.


Original post by Chazzer66
The Catholics of France and Spain united and kicked you out, but of course This Was A Bad Thing, unlike if the Arabs finally got their act together and defeated the 7 million Jews of Israel :wink:


Actually;

1. The Muslims ruled area's for almost 800 years.

2. Contrary to when the Muslims conquered Al Andalus, when Ferdinand and Isabella did complete the Reconquista, they sought to kill every single man, woman and child, that was either Muslim and Jew. Many would've died if it wasn't for Turks sending ships to rescue the civilians in danger, that not only took Christian/Jews but also Christians that were deemed heratics.

3. And during the recapture, all those people that had converted to Islam (which was an enormous amount) were forced to abandon their faith, and any signs of showing it meant persecution and death.

Although some attempted to practice in secret, most were forced to go back to Christianity. There was even an uprising, which was defeated down by the Christian rulers.

Isabella and Ferdinand sought to remove every and any trace of Islamic civilization in Spain. Obviously they weren't fully successful.

Original post by Chazzer66
This Was A Bad Thing, unlike if the Arabs finally got their act together and defeated the 7 million Jews of Israel :wink:


You mean Muslims? And we're not trying to defeat "7 million Jews", which has nothing to do with it. You'll find many Jews who share the same cause as the Muslims do, which is strictly confined against a government/military, not a people.

[video="youtube;wNLJY-x1ssc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNLJY-x1ssc[/video]

Original post by Chazzer66
Please accept that Muslims have engaged in imperialist wars contrary to haram, or you obviously have some sort of anti-reality device and I can give up trying.


It's going to be interesting seeing if you accept the above/watch the video or whether you will be in denial. (al Andalus)

And I have no issue with the word imperialism, depending on what you mean. In the academic circles, the word's only been used to describe the late Ottomon Empire (this list included the Ancient Persian/Roman empires).

So I suppose yes, there were some conquests that had imperialistic motives.



Original post by Chazzer66
2) Your logic seems to be deteriorating. Support for the war will not and cannot correspond to postwar support as facts and the political landscape have changed. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Postwar most Americans were for pullung out, previously most supported intervention, ergo you are making no sense logically. An a priori error is pretty basic dude, stop grasping at straws.


1. No one cares what "most American's" thought, we're talking about Iraqi's here.

2. Most Iraqi's did not "support American intervention", don't bull crap and actually watch the video (before the intervention) and read the link. Otherwise give supporting evidence that "most iraqi's wanted intervention".
(edited 11 years ago)
Remember that it was the U.S that funded and supplied the Taliban in the 80s before turning their back on them, thus leaving them spurned and resentful yet more powerful.

America was happily funding Islamic extremism to combat Communism and yet now are wondering why they have so many problems.
Reply 126
Original post by Spaz Man
Remember that it was the U.S that funded and supplied the Taliban in the 80s before turning their back on them, thus leaving them spurned and resentful yet more powerful.

America was happily funding Islamic extremism to combat Communism and yet now are wondering why they have so many problems.


Well Duh, everyone knows the US funded the Mujahid.
Reply 127
Original post by mack94
lmaoo your username is killa78, How ironic :biggrin:


Haha, ChristianLady told me off for having it because it sounds violent :sad:

Tis a controversial name :lol:
Plus you don't know what i've killed :wink:
Reply 128
Original post by Perseveranze
I hope you're not like Rat Bag, who can't debate, cannot accept facts or evidences, can't back his own points up, uses genetic fallacies, and then once he's been destroyed in debates, cries and spams your pm. And wastes a huge amount of time, and boy did I waste too much of it yesterday.


Mate, any objective observer of our posts on this thread would simply laugh at your statement.

You posted you points. They were quickly and thoroughly refuted. You ran away. It's that simple. Anybody can see that, even you can.

To top it off, the total delusional way that you've handled this debate devalues everything you write elsewhere (and not everything you write is inconsistent, logically flawed and objectively untrue, sometimes your contributions are actually reasonable and valid, just not in this case). The fact you can be so delusional with all this posturing and triumphalism, would show to anybody, that you will believe and construct the most ludicrous things in your mind just to continue believing something that you want to. As a result, all your dawah efforts are diminished by several orders of magnitude, simply because of this comical display of character that you show us. If you sorted out this pride, lack of humility and ego problem you have, you might find yourself being a better Muslim, and moreover, a better debater.

Original post by Perseveranze

Anyways, to answer your question;

1. That quote was an unbiased one (Non-Muslim), to show that Muslims invaded and helped the oppressed Jews and various Christian sects who were considered "heratics".


So if a Muslim is quoted supporting the American invasion and occupation of Iraq in the name of helping the oppressed Kurds and various Shia sects, then this somehow validates the invasion?

You do know, that there are uncountable numbers of Muslims who could be quoted to this effect? Does it validate the American invasion of Iraq? Nope. And neither does your quote validate the Arab invasion of Spain.

Original post by Perseveranze

Otherwise from the Islamic account, Christian chief, Julian, went to Musa ibn Nusair (who was North African leader at that time) to ask for help against Rodrick (who was a tyrannical visigoth ruler).


And? What did the Muslim Iraqis, Ayad Allawi, Ahmed Chalabi, Massoud Barzani, and Jalal Talabani do? They went to various world leaders, to ask for help against Saddam (was was a tyriannical ruler). They shower praise on people like Tony Blair and George Bush. Do these men's words validate the American invasion of Iraq? Nope. And neither does this "Julian" dude that you refer to, validate the Arab invasion of Spain.

Original post by Perseveranze

2. The majority "did not oppose the invasion"


How do you know that? Where are the polls to prove you point?

Original post by Perseveranze

it's well accepted that Tariq landed in spain and so easily defeated the standing army Rodrick brought around. (In fact, there was hardly any resistence except for this one small battle).


And when the Americans invaded Iraq, they wiped the floor, because;
-they had vastly superior military forces
-the Iraqi military force was weak and decrepit
-they had helpers from many sections of Iraqi society.

This should not be interpreted that "the majority did not oppose the invasion". Ordinary people had no means to, and it took time to organise the resistance that the Americans went on to subsequently face, and that eventually led to their explusion.

The exact same is true of Spain. When the Arabs invaded, they wiped the floor, because;
-they had vastly superior military forces
-the Iberian military force was decrepit and power structures totally fragmented
-they had helpers from many sections of Iberian society

But again, you cannot interpret that as "the majority did not oppose the invasion". Over time, resistance was organised that the Arabs went on to subsequently face, and that eventually led to their expulsion.

It's the same situation, so you can cut this denial.

Original post by Perseveranze

The reason the majority weren't opposed to the new rule is because of the terms Muslims provided which contrasted the harsh conditions placed in by the visigoths.


In your dreams. You haven't even got any proof what people on the ground thought. So cut the Fox News style "we're saving them from themselves and giving them freedom".

Original post by Perseveranze

I would recommend you watch this documentary which touches on the subject pretty well;

[video="youtube;G_N27wqbdlI"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_N27wqbdlI[/video]

^Watch the above video, it's excellent and even gives the input of many Spanish Historian Experts as well.


But wait, it's Channel 4, so it's all biased surely?

So if you watch a documentary that says how great the American invasion and occupation of Iraq was, with many "Iraqi Historian Experts [sic]" you would be converted?

Original post by Perseveranze

Actually;

1. The Muslims ruled area's for almost 800 years.


How is that relevant? Surely that makes it worse that they colonised the land for so long. At least the Americans were kicked out after a decade.

Original post by Perseveranze

2. Contrary to when the Muslims conquered Al Andalus, when Ferdinand and Isabella did complete the Reconquista, they sought to kill every single man, woman and child, that was either Muslim and Jew. Many would've died if it wasn't for Turks sending ships to rescue the civilians in danger, that not only took Christian/Jews but also Christians that were deemed heratics.


Have you seen what the Iraqi insurgency/resistance (equivalent in example to Ferdinand and Isabella) do and have done to their own people and the level of sectarian violence?

Original post by Perseveranze

3. And during the recapture, all those people that had converted to Islam (which was an enormous amount) were forced to abandon their faith, and any signs of showing it meant persecution and death.


Sounds like the level of brutality that many Iraqis have to face by their own insurgency/resistance men?

Original post by Perseveranze

Although some attempted to practice in secret, most were forced to go back to Christianity. There was even an uprising, which was defeated down by the Christian rulers.


And you think there was religious freedom in the period of Iraqi reconquest from the Americans? You've got to be joking.

Original post by Perseveranze

It's going to be interesting seeing if you accept the above/watch the video or whether you will be in denial. (al Andalus)


The most interesting thing at this moment in time, is the level of delusion you express in you posts on this topic.

You cannot detach the violence of the resistance and reconquest of Spain from the Arab occupation, from the Arab invasion and occupation itself. The Arabs nurtured and unleashed this level of violence through the very action of colonialism. Just as you cannot detach the violence of the resistance and reconquest of Iraq from the American occupation, from the American invasion and occupation itself. All that sectarian violence, while carried out by Iraqis, is in part, a response to such occupation, just as was the case of the violence of the reconquista, carried out by Iberians. You can't say, "the Arabs liberated Spain, gave them freedom, and x, y z" and ignore what happened as a consequence of this occupation. Just as Fox News cannot (or shouldn't) say "the Americans liberated Iraq, gave them freedom, and x, y ,z", and ignore all that happened as a consequence of this occupation.

Do you understand this? Yes or no? Running away, ignore the debate, making up deluded stories about how I can't debate, etc etc (when it is patently obvious who can't/refuses to debate here) just won't do. Either man up, and engage in this debate properly, or accept that your stance cannot stand up in the face of objective scrutiny.

Original post by Perseveranze

And I have no issue with the word imperialism, depending on what you mean. In the academic circles, the word's only been used to describe the late Ottomon Empire (this list included the Ancient Persian/Roman empires).


So it was Arab Imperialism?

Original post by Perseveranze

So I suppose yes, there were some conquests that had imperialistic motives.


The absolute majority of conquests and wars in the world's history have been for land, resources and power. The Arab conquests conformed totally to this norm.

Original post by Perseveranze

2. Most Iraqi's did not "support American intervention", don't bull crap and actually watch the video (before the intervention) and read the link. Otherwise give supporting evidence that "most iraqi's wanted intervention".


Can you give proper evidence (and that means not some anecdotes from individuals, since anybody can do that in the case of the Iraq war) that "most Iberians wanted Arab intervention"? No
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Rat_Bag
Mate, any objective observer of our posts on this thread would simply laugh at your statement.

You posted you points. They were quickly and thoroughly refuted. You ran away. It's that simple. Anybody can see that, even you can.


LOL, keep dreaming. Anyone who just saw the debate (even an Islamaphobe isn't stupid enough to deny), knows you got completed smashed and ended up wasting so much of my time.

It's not even the subject, it's the fact you were in complete denial despite the evidences and arguements placed ahead. Like there's no one who would argue against the facts because most of the evidences quoted by Academics are from primary sources. There was no way you could refute it, and you didn't even attempt to. Instead your reply pretty much showed how clueless you are about "History as a Academic subject".

You also made a completely baseless claim that Iraqi's wanted an invasion from the US, without any supporting evidence for it, despite the contrary evidence that was shown against such a claim. You also didn't watch the BBC documentary video, because of your own ignorance - and most importantly, because you don't want to learn, you just want to argue and waste time and fulfil that Islamaphobic ego of yours.

In general, you just completely and utterly wasted my time (not the first time mind you) and anyone else who had to read your sorry for an excuse reply. (Which btw, was clearly an ego hurt based one at that. You wouldn't have been so desperate to constantly PM me).

I don't care, if you want to "fulfil your hurt ego" and think you "won the debate" and that "I'm running away", think whatever you like. Point for me is, I just wasted a huge amount of time with you, and it annoys me because I could've instead spent that free time replying to you, by answering the PM's I have or replying to the various other people who have quoted me and aren't as completely and utterly deluded and in denial as you are.

I think I should've known better than to waste time with someone who uses genetic fallacies, believes he's a Hadith scholar, and makes implications that you should ask Richard Dawkins, who's a biologist expert, about "information on a religion".


I have nothing more to say, I have so much better to do. You can whine and be in denial, and believe whatever you like, that's up to you. I'm done wasting time on you.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 130
Original post by Perseveranze
LOL, keep dreaming. Anyone who just saw the debate (even an Islamaphobe isn't stupid enough to deny), knows you got completed smashed and ended up wasting so much of my time.


You get more and more delusional. I don't see how you can say I "got completed [sic] smashed", when for most part, you have ignored 95% of the contents of the posts, including 100% of the last one.

Original post by Perseveranze

It's not even the subject, it's the fact you were in complete denial despite the evidences and arguements placed ahead.


But you haven't put forward any evidence or "arguements [sic]".

Original post by Perseveranze

Like there's no one who would argue against the facts because most of the evidences quoted by Academics are from primary sources.


Where is the primary source that "proves" most Iberians wanted the invasion?

Original post by Perseveranze

There was no way you could refute it,


I did refute what you brought. Try reading my post instead of all this huffing and puffing.

Original post by Perseveranze

and you didn't even attempt to.


It was comprehensively refuted.

Original post by Perseveranze

Instead your reply pretty much showed how clueless you are about "History as a Academic subject".


I don't see how you can say that, when it is obvious you haven't even read my reply, let alone tried to respond to it. Instead you're just running away from the debate, as you always seem to do.

Ask yourself, who is going through, point by point, of the other's post, and comprehensively refuting everything being written in it? It's certainly not you, because you have avoided 95% of the contents of this debate, because you know your stance is indefensible.

Original post by Perseveranze

You also made a completely baseless claim that Iraqi's wanted an invasion from the US, without any supporting evidence for it, despite the contrary evidence that was shown against such a claim.


I have never made any such claim. You need to actually read what I am writing.

The only claim I have made, is that if people used the same standard of evidence that you use to support your unsubstantiated claim that "Iberians wanted the Arabs to invade", then anybody could make a case that "Iraqis wanted the Americans to invade". Both are feeble cases. But your first task is actually to read what is being written, which you obviously haven't.

Original post by Perseveranze

You also didn't watch the BBC documentary video, because of your own ignorance - and most importantly, because you don't want to learn, you just want to argue and waste time and fulfil that Islamaphobic ego of yours.


But the BBC is so biased according to you, so how can it be used as a source?

Original post by Perseveranze

In general, you just completely and utterly wasted my time (not the first time mind you) and anyone else who had to read your sorry for an excuse reply.


I know I have wasted your time. You believe your time is best spent churning out brainless propaganda and conjecture. You have not been able to do that in this case, because the brainless propaganda and conjecture has been shown for what it is.

Original post by Perseveranze

(Which btw, was clearly an ego hurt based one at that. You wouldn't have been so desperate to constantly PM me).


No, I PM you once to link the responses I had made, because you had run away. You responded with a feeble response to about 5% of my post, which I then replied to and refuted, and that was the end of the PM matter. Hardly this spam and desperation that you talk of, but maybe you have problems with perception (delusional people often do).

Original post by Perseveranze

I don't care, if you want to "fulfil your hurt ego" and think you "won the debate" and that "I'm running away", think whatever you like.


The only hurt ego is your own. And, yes I did win the debate, and yes, you did run away.

Original post by Perseveranze

Point for me is, I just wasted a huge amount of time with you, and it annoys me because I could've instead spent that free time replying to you, by answering the PM's I have or replying to the various other people who have quoted me and aren't as completely and utterly deluded and in denial as you are.


You mean, you could have spent that time pasting propaganda and conjecture to brainless individuals, who cream their pants and exhale "Mashallah" at the very sight of your posts?

Fact is, you have failed to defend your stance, you have failed to rebut anything I have written, you have run away from the debate at hand, and you have made yourself look like an utterly delusional fool.

Original post by Perseveranze

I think I should've known better than to waste time with someone who uses genetic fallacies


I've asked you to identify any one of these alleged genetic fallacies, and write a commentary about how it is so. You haven't.

Original post by Perseveranze
believes he's a Hadith scholar


No I don't

Original post by Perseveranze

and makes implications that you should ask Richard Dawkins, who's a biologist expert, about "information on a religion".


This is the third time you have attributed this quote to me, even when I have never written anything of the sort. Please can you kindly link this alleged quote (you've been asked to do so twice in the past, and as usual, failed), so we can put an end to this.

Original post by Perseveranze

I have nothing more to say, I have so much better to do.


Like heal your thrashed ego. It clearly needs a lot of healing.

Original post by Perseveranze

You can whine and be in denial, and believe whatever you like, that's up to you. I'm done wasting time on you.


All these excuses. Just goes to show how weak your imaan is, that's all.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Perseveranze
LOL, keep dreaming. Anyone who just saw the debate (even an Islamaphobe isn't stupid enough to deny), knows you got completed smashed and ended up wasting so much of my time.

It's not even the subject, it's the fact you were in complete denial despite the evidences and arguements placed ahead. Like there's no one who would argue against the facts because most of the evidences quoted by Academics are from primary sources. There was no way you could refute it, and you didn't even attempt to. Instead your reply pretty much showed how clueless you are about "History as a Academic subject".

You also made a completely baseless claim that Iraqi's wanted an invasion from the US, without any supporting evidence for it, despite the contrary evidence that was shown against such a claim. You also didn't watch the BBC documentary video, because of your own ignorance - and most importantly, because you don't want to learn, you just want to argue and waste time and fulfil that Islamaphobic ego of yours.

In general, you just completely and utterly wasted my time (not the first time mind you) and anyone else who had to read your sorry for an excuse reply. (Which btw, was clearly an ego hurt based one at that. You wouldn't have been so desperate to constantly PM me).

I don't care, if you want to "fulfil your hurt ego" and think you "won the debate" and that "I'm running away", think whatever you like. Point for me is, I just wasted a huge amount of time with you, and it annoys me because I could've instead spent that free time replying to you, by answering the PM's I have or replying to the various other people who have quoted me and aren't as completely and utterly deluded and in denial as you are.

I think I should've known better than to waste time with someone who uses genetic fallacies, believes he's a Hadith scholar, and makes implications that you should ask Richard Dawkins, who's a biologist expert, about "information on a religion".


I have nothing more to say, I have so much better to do. You can whine and be in denial, and believe whatever you like, that's up to you. I'm done wasting time on you.


You didn't even respond to any of his comment at all? Please stop being so narrow-minded and arrogant. Accept you are wrong or put forward a case against Rat Bag. As far as I can see you need to get down off your horse and learn a) Some basic historical skills like argument and putting points logically
b) Basic history. And this comes from a history undergrad at Cambridge, your arguments just side-step the issue like politicians do, and you lack an overall ability to grasp trends, facts and evidence. If you have any qualifications in history given that last post I am worried for this discipline and if you do not then just give up arguing on the basis of political (ie Islamist, quite clearly) views.
You've had to concede that Arabs are imperialist so far and I think you have a lot more to accept, like the Taliban being terrorists for example.Yes, some of their actions may be 'fighting for freedom' but blowing up cafes full of bureaucrats is not. Likewise please accept that the Arab invasion of Iberia had no justification besides darwinian imperialism, as what sane country would demand en masse to be annexed? I await a cogent response!
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Chazzer66
You didn't even respond to any of his comment at all? Please stop being so narrow-minded and arrogant. Accept you are wrong or put forward a case against Rat Bag. As far as I can see you need to get down off your horse and learn a) Some basic historical skills like argument and putting points logically
b) Basic history. And this comes from a history undergrad at Cambridge, your arguments just side-step the issue like politicians do, and you lack an overall ability to grasp trends, facts and evidence. If you have any qualifications in history given that last post I am worried for this discipline and if you do not then just give up arguing on the basis of political (ie Islamist, quite clearly) views.
You've had to concede that Arabs are imperialist so far and I think you have a lot more to accept, like the Taliban being terrorists for example.Yes, some of their actions may be 'fighting for freedom' but blowing up cafes full of bureaucrats is not. Likewise please accept that the Arab invasion of Iberia had no justification besides darwinian imperialism, as what sane country would demand en masse to be annexed? I await a cogent response!


Yeah, thanks for the refutation. You actually quoted Rat bag to challenge my evidence for the invasions of Al Andalus. I proved you wrong again, you did not respond to that or admit you were wrong. Like expected from all your posts, you have this bias agenda against Islam/Muslims. I wouldn't be surprised if you think Islam is a terrorist religion. And it's clear you haven't even seen Rat Bags posts, or how I tend to post to even know the difference.

When you said some Islamic invasions were imperialistic, I accepted it, based on the academic resources surrounding the claim (such as the Ottomons). You however, consider me "having to concede". And now you're telling me I need to accept the "Taliban are Terrorists"?

Lol.

I can refute Rat Bag again and again, make him look silly again and again, but it won't stop him from simply argueing, bringing out genetic fallacies, being in denial, not backing his arguments with proof etc. You don't know how much time is wasted on writing these essay replies to him.

This;

But the BBC is so biased according to you, so how can it be used as a source?


That's how his arguements are. How can you possibly expect me to waste time with that? Seriously? He did not watch the video or anything, or realise the bias has always been against Islam, so this documentary for the most part, may not be how Muslims saw things, but at least it proved the claim that I had made. No academia, no sources, no nothing. Instead of just admitting he was wrong, he simply brushed it away with the comment above. If you seriously can't see what I'm getting at here, then you're blind. It's such a time waste.

I prefer to ever engage in a debate with people like Mariachi, or yomomalomo. They may hate Islam, they may use bad sources even, but at least they can accept the facts or when the evidence is weighed against them. That's contrary to people like Rat Bag, Indiana, Exe etc. who aren't really interested in discussion or debating, they just want to argue for the sake of wasting time.

Enough people know me on these forums to know someone like Rat Bag doesn't come close to me in debating skills. They know Rat Bags an Islamaphobe and is on the same calibre of .exe. So he can say whatever he likes, and believe whatever he wants.

You can also think whatever you like. If you believe Rat Bag "beat me in a debate" and had "better arguments" then feel free to believe that. No one's stopping you.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 133
Original post by Perseveranze
Yeah, thanks for the refutation. You actually quoted Rat bag to challenge my evidence for the invasions of Al Andalus. I proved you wrong again, you did not respond to that or admit you were wrong.


What is wrong if he didn't respond; it's not like you behave any differently.

Original post by Perseveranze

Like expected from all your posts, you have this bias agenda against Islam/Muslims.


And you have a bias agenda in favour of Islam/Muslims.

Original post by Perseveranze
And it's clear you haven't even seen Rat Bags posts, or how I tend to post to even know the difference.


It's clear you haven't even read my posts.

Original post by Perseveranze

I can refute Rat Bag again and again


Can you? So do it here. You haven't refuted anything I've written once, so let's see you do it "again and again".

Original post by Perseveranze
make him look silly again and again, but it won't stop him from simply argueing,


I am persisting in this "argueing" [sic] because it quite obviously got you rattled. Am not sure if it's because of the historical equivalence of the Arab invasion and occupation of Iberia and the American invasion and occupation of Iraq that you have quietly had to accept, or the beautiful check-mate that you set up for yourself in terms of Islamic permission to fight, from which you were going to have to admit that you lied, but something has clearly upset you. All this noise and flapping of yours

Original post by Perseveranze
bringing out genetic fallacies


You've been asked several times to identify one (just one) of these genetic fallacies you keep on talking about, and explain how it is so, but you have, as expected, failed to do so.

Original post by Perseveranze
being in denial


This level of denial of yours reminds me of that argument you had with Xotol about your spelling and grammar. Basically, you were criticising Indo-Chinese Food's spelling, rather than the points in his argument, and it was pointed out to you that your spelling was not perfect. You denied this, and when it was pointed out to you that you misspelled "arguement", you went into denial that it was a one off typo. Then it was show how in one thread alone, you had misspelled it more than 30 times. You were in total denial about it. Then, lucky for you, you got banned for a week, so never actually had to face up to it.

Original post by Perseveranze
not backing his arguments with proof etc.


In everything I've written, I've backed it up with equivalence examples.

Original post by Perseveranze

You don't know how much time is wasted on writing these essay replies to him.


Yes, because you think your time is best spent attempting to indoctrinate people with misinformation. Obviously, you were called to account here, and that has stopped you spending your valuable time pursuing your intended aim.

Original post by Perseveranze

This;

Rat_Bag

But the BBC is so biased according to you, so how can it be used as a source?


That's how his arguements are.


Actually, that is exactly how your "arguements! [sic] are. I thought you were smarter than this not to see how much of a tongue in cheek comment this was, but clearly I over estimated you, and once again you are coming out looking absurd. When somebody quotes the BBC about how the Taliban bombed a bus of civilians, you dismiss the event's possibility, because the BBC is biased and not a reliable source. When the BBC produces a documentary that says how lovely and cuddly Muslims were in x, y, or z, you're jumping for joy and how everybody is now going to be able to see the truth.

Rat_Bag
How can you possibly expect me to waste time with that? Seriously?


It's how you approach pretty much every debate. Funny how frustrated you seem to be by someone doing exactly what you do. Kind of shows how introspective you are.

Original post by Perseveranze

He did not watch the video or anything, or realise the bias has always been against Islam


Actually, I watched this documentary when it was shown on Channel 4. If anybody hasn't watched this documentary, it is you, because you have been insisting that it is a BBC documentary, even though I did point out to you first that it was a Channel 4 documentary. But hey ho, you've made enough of a fool of yourself on one thread, so I guess what's the harm in you doing it even more.

Original post by Perseveranze
Instead of just admitting he was wrong, he simply brushed it away with the comment above. If you seriously can't see what I'm getting at here, then you're blind. It's such a time waste.


Actually my first comment was that anybody can post a documentary that has a pro-Iraq war narrative, so what you post is meaningless. But because you struggle with reading and comprehension, you clearly missed it.

You still seem unable to admit in public the equivalence of the Arabs' colonial adventures in the Levant, North Africa and Iberia (and many other places), and America's colonial adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places. You know it to be true, but you cannot admit so in public. That's some heavy pride there.

Original post by Perseveranze

I prefer to ever engage in a debate with people like Mariachi, or yomomalomo. They may hate Islam, they may use bad sources even, but at least they can accept the facts or when the evidence is weighed against them. That's contrary to people like Rat Bag, Indiana, Exe etc. who aren't really interested in discussion or debating, they just want to argue for the sake of wasting time.


So Mariachi and yomomalomo hate Islam? Are they Islamophobes?

Original post by Perseveranze

Enough people know me on these forums......


Doesn't somebody have an over inflated opinion of themselves?

Original post by Perseveranze
.......to know someone like Rat Bag doesn't come close to me in debating skills.


I know, am glad your debating skills don't come close to mine; yours are totally terrible, so the further their association is with mine, the better.

Original post by Perseveranze

They know Rat Bags an Islamaphobe and is on the same calibre of .exe. So he can say whatever he likes, and believe whatever he wants.


Oh, throughout the whole interaction on this thread, this has been your main point over and over again; that I'm an Islamophobe. The very fact that your one single point is this pseudo ad hominem, just shows how totally devoid of substance your argument is.

Original post by Perseveranze

You can also think whatever you like. If you believe Rat Bag "beat me in a debate" and had "better arguments" then feel free to believe that. No one's stopping you.


Anybody who reads this thread would think so, even Muslims would say your performance was utterly poor. Its this own acknowledged inadequacy of yours that has so pissed you off in this case.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 134
Original post by Chazzer66
You didn't even respond to any of his comment at all? Please stop being so narrow-minded and arrogant. Accept you are wrong or put forward a case against Rat Bag. As far as I can see you need to get down off your horse and learn a) Some basic historical skills like argument and putting points logically
b) Basic history. And this comes from a history undergrad at Cambridge, your arguments just side-step the issue like politicians do, and you lack an overall ability to grasp trends, facts and evidence. If you have any qualifications in history given that last post I am worried for this discipline and if you do not then just give up arguing on the basis of political (ie Islamist, quite clearly) views.
You've had to concede that Arabs are imperialist so far and I think you have a lot more to accept, like the Taliban being terrorists for example.Yes, some of their actions may be 'fighting for freedom' but blowing up cafes full of bureaucrats is not. Likewise please accept that the Arab invasion of Iberia had no justification besides darwinian imperialism, as what sane country would demand en masse to be annexed? I await a cogent response!


Basically, the reason Perseveranze seems to have flipped on this occasion, is that he knows he's on the wrong side of morality. The years and years of indoctrination of the moral superiority of Islam, and the moral superiority it gives Muslims, have nurtured a deep sense of pride within some Muslims like Perseveranze. They basically live off this sense of moral superiority, and lap up the opportunities to take the moral high ground that is often given to them (West's support for Israel, America's invasion of Iraq, visible elements of social breakdown in Western countries etc etc). However, in this case, when shown the unequivocal proof of equivalence between the Arabs' colonialist and imperialist adventures in the Levant, North Africa, Iberia and America's colonialist and imperialist adventures in Iraq, the tables get turned. As much as he is loathe to admit it, somebody who isn't Muslim is able to take the moral high ground over him in their condemnation of the Arabs' invasion of Spain and America's invasion of Iraq, and there is nothing that he can do about it (except run away, freak out with endless ad hominems, and work himself up into the deluded state we find him in now). This is the bitter truth that is so painful for him to accept, and that's why he's behaving the way that he is.

But he's a good person at heart, and well intentioned. It's just he's locked himself inside what he thinks is this internally consistent ideology. The problem is his pride and ego. That's what he'll need to work on if he is ever to find a consistent truth and an inner peace (which he obviously lacks right now)
Reply 135
Original post by Rat_Bag

But he's a good person at heart, and well intentioned. It's just he's locked himself inside what he thinks is this internally consistent ideology.


I'm fairly convinced he would like to see Sharia law descend on the UK, would be apathetic to another holocaust, which he is a skeptic of (denier amonst his Muslims chums) anyway, is pretty homophobic, probably uses phrases like "our women", "your women".

For someone who is highly articulate I'm suprised they even believe in a religion so thoroughly, there are thousands of high IQ people and Geniuses who believe in "a" God of some sort, but usually the smarter people don't blindly follow a religion, luckily their intelligence can see through the childhood indocrination.
Original post by Rat_Bag
.


What's this talk of 'genetic fallacies'? I don't see how this thread could get on to genetics.
Reply 137
Original post by prog2djent
I'm fairly convinced he would like to see Sharia law descend on the UK, would be apathetic to another holocaust, which he is a skeptic of (denier amonst his Muslims chums) anyway, is pretty homophobic, probably uses phrases like "our women", "your women".


Maybe, but all this is reflective of brainwashing of an angry yet at heart, caring individual. In another time, in another context, I doubt he would be in this same delusional state.

Original post by prog2djent

For someone who is highly articulate I'm suprised they even believe in a religion so thoroughly, there are thousands of high IQ people and Geniuses who believe in "a" God of some sort, but usually the smarter people don't blindly follow a religion, luckily their intelligence can see through the childhood indocrination.


The thing is, if you are highly motivated by rational thinking, then Islam can appear very attractive. While it is objectively an irrational ideology, its backers have huge resources to restructure its presentation as perfect rationality, with quite elaborate conjecture. Also highly rational people, are often very calculating of risk, and as such quite risk-averse. Islam is all about containing risk (risk of immorality x, so we must ban y), and in fact, the threat of eternal hell and torture that accompanies it, is very fearsome for somebody who is even marginally risk averse. For somebody inside the religion, it appears totally internally consistent, as is the case of Perseveranze. His main problem is his pride, lack of humility and ego problems. That's what perpetuates the faith, and stops any form of critical self-analysis. But I mean what I say when I don't think he was a bad person. I also don't think somebody like Mohammad Saddique Khan was inherently a bad person either (though some Islamic terrorists are), just the same sort of situation that Perseveranze has found himself in.
Reply 138
Original post by TheHansa
What's this talk of 'genetic fallacies'? I don't see how this thread could get on to genetics.


You need to ask Perseveranze this. I have asked him several times to identify one of these "genetic fallacies", and provide an elaboration. Of course he has failed to do this.

But a genetic fallacy is not actually anything to do with genetics, it is to do with linking the logic of precedence with the present.
Original post by killa78
Such silly people -_-

Killing of innocents is pathetic and never justified :sad:



Normal, logically thinking people know this, unfortunatly this is not a widespread belief amoungst muslims.

Quick Reply

Latest