they just can't help them selves.

Perhaps you could help them.

                    :-/

Those that incite hatred of moderate muslims are an enemy of Australia.

The fundamentalists want to incite a war between the west and moderate muslims ... those inciting hatred between these two groups are assisting fundamentalist.

We should have no tolerance of moderate muslim haters.

how is beheading someone "moderate"?

rhino wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 10:37pm:

how is beheading someone "moderate"?

Ask Tony "heads must roll" Abbott.

____ wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 9:36pm:

Those that incite hatred of moderate muslims are an enemy of Australia. The fundamentalists want to incite a war between the west and moderate muslims ... those inciting hatred between these two groups are assisting fundamentalist. We should have no tolerance of moderate muslim haters.

from the same person who incites hatred to anything or anyone whos liberal...

what a joke..

maybe you should try practicing what your preach and surprise everyone. >:(

rhino wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 10:37pm:

how is beheading someone "moderate"?

greens wouldnt have a clue.. :D

cods wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 10:53pm:

____ wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 9:36pm: Those that incite hatred of moderate muslims are an enemy of Australia. The fundamentalists want to incite a war between the west and moderate muslims ... those inciting hatred between these two groups are assisting fundamentalist. We should have no tolerance of moderate muslim haters. from the same person who incites hatred to anything or anyone whos liberal... what a joke.. maybe you should try practicing what your preach and surprise everyone. >:(

from the same person who incites hatred to anything or anyone whos labor...

what a joke..

maybe you should try practicing what your preach and surprise everyone. >:(

edit: (SIC) mostly

cods wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 10:54pm:

rhino wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 10:37pm: how is beheading someone "moderate"? greens wouldnt have a clue.. :D

You should give them one. After all you need to provide a solution if you are going to criticise, apparently. Here's your chance!

cods wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 10:53pm:

____ wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 9:36pm: Those that incite hatred of moderate muslims are an enemy of Australia. The fundamentalists want to incite a war between the west and moderate muslims ... those inciting hatred between these two groups are assisting fundamentalist. We should have no tolerance of moderate muslim haters. from the same person who incites hatred to anything or anyone whos liberal... what a joke.. maybe you should try practicing what your preach and surprise everyone. >:(

Quote:

The biggest bonus of dumping regressivism/the abbott mob is not  to promote Labor, it's to give moderate Liberals the opportunity to promote Malcolm Turnbull as Liberal Party Leader.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1435270355/10

Try again sweetie.

cods wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 10:54pm:

rhino wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 10:37pm: how is beheading someone "moderate"? greens wouldnt have a clue.. :D

The question was likely directed to the creator of the thread sweetie. Try and keep up.

____ wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 9:36pm:

Those that incite hatred of moderate muslims are an enemy of Australia. a:  Who's inciting hatred? Aren't you, yourself, inciting divisions within our community? b: What constitutes a 'moderate' Muslim? If our Muslims are truly 'moderate', why are they not willing to demonise fundamentalism within their own communities? The fundamentalists want to incite a war between the west and moderate muslims ... those inciting hatred between these two groups are assisting fundamentalist. See above. We should have no tolerance of moderate muslim haters. So, you promote intolerance of the 'moderate' Muslims who hate, but have no comment about the 'radical' Muslim haters in our communities.

Another Kumbaya proposal by the Greens - pure in essence and short of intellect.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 11:25pm:

____ wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 9:36pm: Those that incite hatred of moderate muslims are an enemy of Australia. a:  Who's inciting hatred? Aren't you, yourself, inciting divisions within our community? b: What constitutes a 'moderate' Muslim? If our Muslims are truly 'moderate', why are they not willing to demonise fundamentalism within their own communities? The fundamentalists want to incite a war between the west and moderate muslims ... those inciting hatred between these two groups are assisting fundamentalist. See above. We should have no tolerance of moderate muslim haters. So, you promote intolerance of the 'moderate' Muslims who hate, but have no comment about the 'radical' Muslim haters in our communities. Another Kumbaya proposal by the Greens - pure in essence and short of intellect.

A moderate muslim isn't chopping people's heads off for fundamentalism. The naming of this thread shows someone who is trying to stereotype moderate muslims as extremists.

And moderate muslims are speaking out against extremists who are pretending to be muslims.

And you have twisted my post :
Quote:

We should have no tolerance of moderate muslim haters.

That means having no tolerance of non muslims who are trying to provoke a fight between westerners and moderate muslims. These people are doing the bidding of fundamentalists since they both have the same agenda ... provoking war.


Quote:

Another Kumbaya proposal by the Greens - pure in essence and short of intellect.

Nice pre judge before allowing me a reply. Shows someone carrying a bias.

____ wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 11:36pm:

Nice pre judge before allowing me a reply. Shows someone carrying a bias.

I merely commented. No pre-judgement intended.

And your own comments display your own bias.

Islam is hostile to any other belief - true or false?

Careful here, I never mentioned Muslims.

Moderates don't chop heads off, that would be FANATICS.

Setanta wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 10:57pm:

cods wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 10:54pm: rhino wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 10:37pm: how is beheading someone "moderate"? greens wouldnt have a clue.. :D You should give them one. After all you need to provide a solution if you are going to criticise, apparently. Here's your chance!

really... since it isnt my thread why dont you ask green he is the one claiming the thread is all wrong... and believe me he will have the answers for you... he has been saving them up for years... ::) ::)

I have been waiting for years from an answer from him but I am sure you will have no trouble...........



I do not have a clue what the op is talking about.. but greenswin seem to know... >:(

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 7:28am:

Moderates don't chop heads off, that would be FANATICS.

oh I dont know pansi....it has been going on for years they still do it in Saudi Arabia as their death sentence punishment...

ghastly I know... but they do..

____ wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 9:36pm:

Those that incite hatred of moderate muslims are an enemy of Australia. The fundamentalists want to incite a war between the west and moderate muslims ... those inciting hatred between these two groups are assisting fundamentalist. We should have no tolerance of moderate muslim haters.

They either believe that Mohammed is the messenger of God, or they do not. Your apologies for Islam and its methods are indecent.

"Moderate radical muslims beheading the french"


                                      ::)

cods wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 7:48am:

I do not have a clue what the op is talking about.. but greenswin seem to know... >:(

Some crazy French dude chopped his boss's head off, and then left it hanging on the front gate of the factory where he works.

I'm guessing he'll be called in for a disciplinary meeting on Monday morning.

Quote:

And moderate muslims are speaking out against extremists who are pretending to be muslims.

A while ago a Muslim extremist murdered 800 Jews in one day. I challenge you to find a single Muslim, extreme, moderate or progressive, who will speak out against that.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Jun 26^th, 2015 at 11:59pm:

____ wrote on Jun 26th, 2015 at 11:36pm: Nice pre judge before allowing me a reply. Shows someone carrying a bias. I merely commented. No pre-judgement intended. And your own comments display your own bias. Islam is hostile to any other belief - true or false? Careful here, I never mentioned Muslims.

Most cults are out to attain more cultists ... be it islam, christian ....

That said, there are moderate and extremists in any cult. Thing is to differentiate and then focus on like minded people.

i.e those that will not fall for extreme rhetoric coming from different sources.

Then stand shoulder to shoulder united. Anyone who refuses to go down the path of a religious world war, it's time to stand united.

No to stereotyping moderate people, be of any race, religion, ethnicity, or political persuasion.

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 10:00am:

Quote: And moderate muslims are speaking out against extremists who are pretending to be muslims. A while ago a Muslim extremist murdered 800 Jews in one day. I challenge you to find a single Muslim, extreme, moderate or progressive, who will speak out against that.

Can I get a link to what you are speaking about. Searching the wrong part of google at the moment obviously.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1434708827/17#17


Quote:

i.e those that will not fall for extreme rhetoric coming from different sources.

The extreme rhetoric comes from the Koran itsel.

Don't the French already have some history of removing heads?

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 10:24am:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1434708827/17#17 Quote: i.e those that will not fall for extreme rhetoric coming from different sources. The extreme rhetoric comes from the Koran itsel.

Sure.
And like other holy books, moderate cultists don't take every word as gospel.
These are the people we should stand shoulder to shoulder with ... unless we are after a long and bitter bloodbath over religion.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 8:18am:

cods wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 7:48am: I do not have a clue what the op is talking about.. but greenswin seem to know... >:( Some crazy French dude chopped his boss's head off, and then left it hanging on the front gate of the factory where he works. I'm guessing he'll be called in for a disciplinary meeting on Monday morning.

 

Was he second in charge, by any chance?

____ wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 10:34am:

freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 10:24am: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1434708827/17#17 Quote: i.e those that will not fall for extreme rhetoric coming from different sources. The extreme rhetoric comes from the Koran itsel. Sure. And like other holy books, moderate cultists don't take every word as gospel. These are the people we should stand shoulder to shoulder with ... unless we are after a long and bitter bloodbath over religion.

So find me any muslim - extreme, moderate, progressive, who does not take that as gospel. They will all defend and support the slaughter. Even Gandalf, and they do not get more progressive than him. He even suggested that Muhammed's command to kill gay people (both the giver and the receiver) should be limited to gays who flaunt their homosexuality, mardis gras style (eg 'the people of Lot'). Is he the sort of Muslim you want to stand shoulder to shoulder with?

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 10:38am:

____ wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 10:34am: freediver wrote on Jun 27th, 2015 at 10:24am: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1434708827/17#17 Quote: i.e those that will not fall for extreme rhetoric coming from different sources. The extreme rhetoric comes from the Koran itsel. Sure. And like other holy books, moderate cultists don't take every word as gospel. These are the people we should stand shoulder to shoulder with ... unless we are after a long and bitter bloodbath over religion. So find me any muslim - extreme, moderate, progressive, who does not take that as gospel. They will all defend and support the slaughter. Even Gandalf, and they do not get more progressive than him. He even suggested that Muhammed's command to kill gay people (both the giver and the receiver) should be limited to gays who flaunt their homosexuality, mardis gras style (eg 'the people of Lot'). Is he the sort of Muslim you want to stand shoulder to shoulder with?

I'd have no fear in standing shoulder to shoulder with Gandalf, he presents as an intelligent, reasoned person.

Yes he is very aware of presentation, hence his refusal to acknowledge that the Jews who were executed for supposedly being treacherous were treacherous Jews. He will attempt to make an intelligent, reasoned defense of murdering them all, so long as it is not presented in a way that might appear bigoted. These are the Muslims we must stand side by side with - the ones who know how to spin genocide into something politically correct.

Phemanderac wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 10:28am:

Don't the French already have some history of removing heads?

this is now a dual between EXTREME v MODERATE
where do you think the revolutionists were phem??

since they did at least have some form of trial I guess they would be classed as mods..

its interesting though the French still celebrate Bastille Day...which was after all a very very bloody [terrifying for some]time in France.. ::) ::) ::)

The French knew how to cut heads off:


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jguIhiy7mD8/T2iTwuQWGkI/AAAAAAAABak/qLPSDdGkouc/s1600/guillotine.jpg

Their last one was in 1977.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_France

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 10:38am:

Even Gandalf, and they do not get more progressive than him. He even suggested that Muhammed's command to kill gay people (both the giver and the receiver) should be limited to gays who flaunt their homosexuality, mardis gras style (eg 'the people of Lot').

What???  ;D ;D

Quote me. Thats probably your most absurd fabricated claim yet - and there have been a lot.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 7:40pm:

FD he's obviously talking about sodomy. But the argument has been made (not by me) that he is only talking about sodomy that is borne out of lust and debauchery - not from genuine love and commitment. You've got to admit there is a legitimate question about why he refers to it as "anyone doing as Lot's people did" as opposed to simply saying "anyone who commits sodomy" Also, the quranic verses referring to Lot's people only refers to sodomy in the context of lust, no mention of sodomy in the context of genuine love and devotion.

Once again, quote me saying, or even suggesting " Muhammed's command to kill gay people (both the giver and the receiver) should be limited to gays who flaunt their homosexuality, mardis gras style"

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 8:08pm:

gays who flaunt their homosexuality, mardis gras style (eg 'the people of Lot').

And how on earth did you make the connection between what I said about Lot's people and 'mardis gras style'?

Its completely wrong - laughably so. And you could have saved yourself the embarrassment if you simply read my post that preceded the one you quoted.

So have you figured out yet under what circumstances you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays? Only if they take as well as give?

muslims (moderate muslims) need a new PR agent.
their brand is getting tarnished.
catholics need to come out hard against pedophile priests (much harder then non-catholics)
and muslims need to come out hard against fanatical muslims, in fact, if the moderate muslims in sydeny had a brain they would organise a rally decrying these muslim fundamentalists.
surely the lefties can help them organise this and we expect a massive turnout.

aquascoot wrote on Jun 28^th, 2015 at 6:18pm:

catholics need to come out hard against pedophile priests

That could be awkward    :-/

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 28^th, 2015 at 6:33pm:

aquascoot wrote on Jun 28th, 2015 at 6:18pm: catholics need to come out hard against pedophile priests That could be awkward    :-/

;D

Setanta wrote on Jun 28^th, 2015 at 6:53pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jun 28th, 2015 at 6:33pm: aquascoot wrote on Jun 28th, 2015 at 6:18pm: catholics need to come out hard against pedophile priests That could be awkward    :-/ ;D

I just wish they'd stop coming out hard against kids.

freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2015 at 5:48pm:

So have you figured out yet under what circumstances you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays? Only if they take as well as give?

I'm more interested in the cognitive processes involved that led you to believe what I said meant 'mardi gras style'.

Of course. We must focus on how Muslims are misunderstood rather than whether they actually want to kill people.

Violent Extremistan vs the dar al Gay



A nice chichi gay couple at 27 Elm Street and a firebreathing imam and his four child brides at 29 Elm Street equals the social harmony of a multiculti utopia.
http://www.steynonline.com/7024/violent-extremistan-vs-the-dar-al-gay

So funny, so true.

The time will come when the various PC pieties - Muslims, gays, trannies, women, [your pet PC peev here] will clash and there will be no clear-eyed way to steer a path because everything is relativised. No shared, common ground, in all this relentless diversity-mongering.

"What binds us together is that we have nuffin' to do wiv nuffin'".

Progress, innit.

freediver wrote on Jul 1^st, 2015 at 6:24pm:

Of course. We must focus on how Muslims are misunderstood rather than whether they actually want to kill people.

Gee FD, how did I get dragged into this debate? By you making yet another completely fabricated claim about what muslims say. So yes, that absolutely should be the focus. You obviously don't think its important how you continually make crap up about what muslims say - and thats the problem.

Perhaps you should take the opportunity to clear the air. I am pretty sure this did not get resolved last time.

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

All been covered in the thread you quoted earlier.

You still don't get the issue here do you? Do you acknowledge that you completely fabricated yet another claim about "what muslims say"? Do you see the problem with that serial behaviour and how it undermines your contentions about muslim attitudes?

Quote:

All been covered in the thread you quoted earlier.

Actually you went to some length to distance yourself from this argument that may or may not relate to mardis gras. What is the difference between your position, or this position you attribute to others, and my portrayal of it?

I dealt with the issue thoroughly in the thread - read the subsequent posts if you are really interested.

Can you at least address the issue here - do you acknowledge the problem problem of continually misrepresenting my position? Saying blatantly fabricated crap from "Gandalf thinks executing gays is an expression of gay pride" to "Gandalf thinks gays should only be executed if they flaunt their sexuality 'mardi gras style'" - are two of the most outrageous lies you have come up with about me FD. And simply dismissing it with "oh but Gandalf refuses to state his position" is not an excuse. You are basically saying my alleged non-posiiton gives you a license to come up with these ridiculous fabrications.

Do you seriously not see the problem with these blatant fabrications to the credibility of your continuous droning arguments about "what muslims think"?

Not sure what your problem is Gandalf. I think I did a pretty good job of recalling a conversation from over 12 months ago that was basically you doing your typical dozen pages of tapdancing. Much like you are doing now. If you cannot even explain the mistake I supposedly made, I am not going to acknowledge it. Was I not longwinded enough?

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 6:47pm:

If you cannot even explain the mistake I supposedly made, I am not going to acknowledge it.

Its very simple FD - I didn't say that gays should be executed if they flaunt their sexuality "mardi gras style" - in that thread or anywhere else. Not even close. I told you from the beginning that my position, based on my interpretation of the Quranic account of Lut, was clearly articulated in the next post after the one you quoted. You never bothered to check that did you? If you did it would be abundantly clear to you that my opinion on the matter couldn't be more opposed to the posiiton you ascribed to me in this thread.

As predicted, you are using the exact excuse I referred to in my last post: don't know what gandalf is saying, so I'll make up some crap. This wouldn't be an issue if instead of saying "he even suggested that Muhammed's command to kill gay people (both the giver and the receiver) should be limited to gays who flaunt their homosexuality, mardis gras style" - you simply said what you are claiming now - that you are unclear of gandalf's position because of his tapdancing etc.

At least tell me this FD - if you were so confused about my position in that conversation - as you are now claiming - why did you use it to pretend that I held such a clear-cut position on the matter?

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays?


Quote:

I told you from the beginning that my position, based on my interpretation of the Quranic account of Lut, was clearly articulated in the next post after the one you quoted. You never bothered to check that did you?

Here is the next post:


Datalife wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 7:56pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10th, 2014 at 7:40pm: FD he's obviously talking about sodomy. But the argument has been made (not by me) that he is only talking about sodomy that is borne out of lust and debauchery - not from genuine love and commitment. You've got to admit there is a legitimate question about why he refers to it as "anyone doing as Lot's people did" as opposed to simply saying "anyone who commits sodomy" Also, the quranic verses referring to Lot's people only refers to sodomy in the context of lust, no mention of sodomy in the context of genuine love and devotion. That degree of sophistry is worthy of Yadda when defending ridiculous aspects of his sky pixie beliefs. And as laughable.  Tis a joy to watch you at work.

Perhaps you meant "your" next post:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 8:05pm:

Datalife your contribution on this forum is simply awe-inspiring.

Quote:

As predicted, you are using the exact excuse I referred to in my last post: don't know what gandalf is saying, so I'll make up some crap.

Can you quote me saying this?


Quote:

This wouldn't be an issue if instead of saying "he even suggested that Muhammed's command to kill gay people (both the giver and the receiver) should be limited to gays who flaunt their homosexuality, mardis gras style" - you simply said what you are claiming now - that you are unclear of gandalf's position because of his tapdancing etc.

I think that is a pretty good precis of the more lengthy quote I posted.

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2015 at 8:04pm:

Perhaps you meant "your" next post:

Sorry, I meant to say previous, not next:


Quote:

One would imagine that if it was a specific order against sodomy itself, The Prophet would have said something like "If you find anyone committing sodomy..." rather than the slightly more cryptic "if you find anyone doing as Lot's people did..." What we do know is that the sins of Lot's people was not sodomy per se - but the whole gamut of base, criminal behaviour that come with a complete moral breakdown - robbery, rape, murder etc, of which sodomy in that context came to symbolise. By the description, Muhammad is clearly talking about an act of sodomy, but is it necessarily any act of sodomy? In my view, the case has not been conclusively made.

Interesting, I didn't realise they go around murdering, raping and robbing people at the mardi gras. I also didn't realise that that sort of criminality can be explained as mere "flaunting" your sexuality.

Quote:

One would imagine that if it was a specific order against sodomy itself, The Prophet would have said something like "If you find anyone committing sodomy..." rather than the slightly more cryptic "if you find anyone doing as Lot's people did..."

It is possibly cryptic, up until Muhammed says kill both the giver and the receiver, when it becomes, by your own admission, an obvious reference to homosexuality.

Do you think Muhammed intended people to be confused about who to kill?

So now you know how completely absurd was the position you ascribed to me - do you have any thoughts about the possible problems with this sort of fabricating of things that muslims say - in the process of making such a fuss about how muslims implicate themselves with their own words?

Quote:

So now you know how completely absurd was the position you ascribed to me

Quote:

As predicted, you are using the exact excuse I referred to in my last post: don't know what gandalf is saying, so I'll make up some crap.

Gee Gandalf, I'd hate to accuse you of making things up.

Do you think Muhammed intended people to be confused about who to kill?

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

Expert tapdancing FD - do you or don't you acknowledge that you fabricated my position (perhaps inadvertantly) about what I "suggested" should be the right conditions to execute gays?

Yes or no.

I think that is a pretty good precis of the more lengthy quote I posted, especially considering I was recalling a conversation that was over 12 months old in which you did your usual dozen pages of deflections.

Do you think Muhammed intended people to be confused about who to kill?

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 6:58pm:

I think that is a pretty good precis of the more lengthy quote I posted, especially considering I was recalling a conversation that was over 12 months old in which you did your usual dozen pages of deflections.

So my position was very confusing, and your memory was hazy? And yet you stated what you claimed was my position so emphatically:

" He even suggested that Muhammed's command to kill gay people (both the giver and the receiver) should be limited to gays who flaunt their homosexuality, mardis gras style"

You don't seem very confused there FD.

And I still can't work out why you chose that post - when the preceding post made it crystal clear that what I suggested was nothing even remotely what you claimed. Here it is again:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 1:54pm:

What we do know is that the sins of Lot's people was not sodomy per se - but the whole gamut of base, criminal behaviour that come with a complete moral breakdown - robbery, rape, murder etc, of which sodomy in that context came to symbolise.

Do they usually engage in that sort of criminal behaviour at the mardi gras?

Do you think Muhammed intended people to be confused about who to kill?

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

keep tapdancing FD - I made it clear why I was dragged into this thread, and it wasn't to flog dead horses.

So I take it you don't acknowledge the problem you have with fabricating claims about what muslims say?

Would you at least admit it was an inadvertent fabrication? When you are slandering someone so blatantly as you did in this thread, I'd have thought you'd be man enough to acknowledge the mistake when its pointed out to you.

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 10:38am:

Even Gandalf, and they do not get more progressive than him. He even suggested that Muhammed's command to kill gay people (both the giver and the receiver) should be limited to gays who flaunt their homosexuality, mardis gras style (eg 'the people of Lot'). Is he the sort of Muslim you want to stand shoulder to shoulder with?

noice. Some real class there FD.

Slander

noun

a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report:
a slander against his good name.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander

It's a bit hard to tell if I 'inadvertently' misrepresented your position when you refuse to say what that position is. But thanks for backpedaling. Perhaps I should make better use of the wiki so as not to make some minor mistake in future.

Do you think Muhammed intended people to be confused about who to kill?

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

What would you think of a modern leader who issued an edict to kill people but left it a bit vague who to kill and under what circumstances?

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 7:41pm:

It's a bit hard to tell if I 'inadvertently' misrepresented your position when you refuse to say what that position is.

Oh its easy FD, you see you don't have to know what my position is to know that what you claim I "suggested" is plain bollocks. I even spelled it out for you just a few minutes ago. Here I'll explain it to you again:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 1:54pm:

What we do know is that the sins of Lot's people was not sodomy per se - but the whole gamut of base, criminal behaviour that come with a complete moral breakdown - robbery, rape, murder etc, of which sodomy in that context came to symbolise.

refutes...


freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 10:38am:

Even Gandalf, and they do not get more progressive than him. He even suggested that Muhammed's command to kill gay people (both the giver and the receiver) should be limited to gays who flaunt their homosexuality, mardis gras style (eg 'the people of Lot').

Or if you disagree, then it should be easy for you to explain how "the gamut of base, criminal behaviour [such as] robbery, rape, murder etc" can be equated to 'mardi gras style'. Can you do that FD? Do you think you can address this now? Do you think I deserve an explanation after you so blatantly slandered me?

Quote:

Oh its easy FD, you see you don't have to know what my position is to know that what you claim I "suggested" is plain bollocks.

I think that is a pretty good precis of the more lengthy quote I posted. You do not appear to have disagreed with me on this point.

Do you think Muhammed intended people to be confused about who to kill?

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

What would you think of a modern leader who issued an edict to kill people but left it a bit vague who to kill and under what circumstances?

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 7:54pm:

I think that is a pretty good precis of the more lengthy quote I posted.

And now after I pointed out the preceding post that you somehow miraculously missed - you know it to be bollocks. Are you going to retract the slander? Do you see any problems with such blatant fabrications (inadvertent or not) when making such a big deal about "what muslims say"?

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 7:54pm:

I think that is a pretty good precis of the more lengthy quote I posted. You do not appear to have disagreed with me on this point.

How do you think that would stand up in court FD - to justify your slander of someone by cherry picking the evidence - saying that one quote in isolation makes your slander sound true - but ignoring the fact that the entire set of evidence gives a complete different picture?

"no no your honour - please don't look at all the evidence - just look at this one piece so I can completely distort the meaning". Would you go with that defence FD - or are you still sticking to the "oh it such a long time ago - I slandered him because I couldn't even remember what he said - and besides he was being so darned deflective - he deserves that slander!"

Others woke up ages ago, gandalf...but it seems you have not yet fully grasped what is happening.

FD is not in the least bit interested in acknowledging that he was wrong.......all he wants from you is an opinion that he can make mockery of on his Muslim bash Wiki.

Quote:

And now after I pointed out the preceding post that you somehow miraculously missed

I was recalling a conversation that happened over a year ago Gandalf.

Do you think Muhammed intended people to be confused about who to kill?

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

What would you think of a modern leader who issued an edict to kill people but left it a bit vague who to kill and under what circumstances?

It is not important whom Mohamed wanted killed. He would kill anyone who got in his way. The point is that he was a charlatan, unless like Gandalf, you believe he was the messenger of God.

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 9:39pm:

I was recalling a conversation that happened over a year ago Gandalf.

lol and you still don't get it do you?

Do you see a problem in leaping to declare what gandalf definitely did or didn't say - from a conversations you now concede you had difficulty recalling - and which you now know your recollection was wrong?

Tell me this FD - when you went scrambling  for "evidence" for your slander, how did you "miss" the one relevant quote that would have proved to you that your claim was patently untrue? I mean it was literally directly above the one you did use.

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 9:39pm:

I was recalling a conversation that happened over a year ago Gandalf.

"Oh please your honour - you can't expect me to acknowledge that my slander was wrong - I was recalling a conversation that happened over a year ago!!"

smacking unbelievable  >:(

Quote:

Do you see a problem in leaping to declare what gandalf definitely did or didn't say - from a conversations you now concede you had difficulty recalling

I had no difficulty. I think I did pretty well. You should stop declaring I definitely, 100% said something when I actually said the opposite.

Do you think Muhammed intended people to be confused about who to kill?

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

What would you think of a modern leader who issued an edict to kill people but left it a bit vague who to kill and under what circumstances?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 10:41am:

Quote: Do you see a problem in leaping to declare what gandalf definitely did or didn't say - from a conversations you now concede you had difficulty recalling I had no difficulty. I think I did pretty well. You should stop declaring I definitely, 100% said something when I actually said the opposite.

How so FD?

Recalling what was said previously seems to be quite a serious problem for you - even recalling what you say yourself. Here I'll remind you again:


freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 10:38am:

Even Gandalf, and they do not get more progressive than him. He even suggested that Muhammed's command to kill gay people (both the giver and the receiver) should be limited to gays who flaunt their homosexuality, mardis gras style (eg 'the people of Lot'). Is he the sort of Muslim you want to stand shoulder to shoulder with?

This is what you "definitely, 100% said." I never claimed anything else. And in case you still cannot grasp the problem - Gandalf did not repeat DID NOT suggest that "Muhammed's command to kill gay people (both the giver and the receiver) should be limited to gays who flaunt their homosexuality, mardis gras style". The post I have referred to you would have cleared that up for you no problem.

Are you still going to use the "oh but I was recalling a conversation from over a year ago" BS defense? Do you understand how that is not a defense at all on the point of slandering someone?

Gandalf do you think Muhammed intended people to be confused about who to kill?

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

What would you think of a modern leader who issued an edict to kill people but left it a bit vague who to kill and under what circumstances?


Quote:

Gandalf did not repeat DID NOT suggest that "Muhammed's command to kill gay people (both the giver and the receiver) should be limited to gays who flaunt their homosexuality, mardis gras style".

Perhaps you can explain the difference between that and the post I quoted.


Quote:

Are you still going to use the "oh but I was recalling a conversation from over a year ago" BS defense?

You asked me why I "somehow miraculously missed" it. That is why. You asked me where I got the mardis gras analogy from. I posted the quote for you. You seem to be trying to get me to say something particular, then getting upset when I do not say it. I'm sorry it did not work out how you wanted.

FD do you think you are making some sort of valid point repeating those questions I have already explained I will not be answering? Have you worked out the reason - and the only reason - I am in this thread, and who is responsible for dragging me in to it?


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 1:18pm:

You asked me why I "somehow miraculously missed" it. That is why. You asked me where I got the mardis gras analogy from. I posted the quote for you. You seem to be trying to get me to say something particular, then getting upset when I do not say it. I'm sorry it did not work out how you wanted.

Am I correct to say that you didn't actually check this discussion from a year ago until after you blurted out that slanderous accusation about me? Do you see any problem with that - especially now that you are resorting to the "well it was a long time ago" defense?

FD do you think its important to understand exactly what the facts are before making accusations against people? Do you agree that the preceding quote at the very least puts your accusation in serious question - and that you were amiss not to check that (in addition to the quote you posted)? Do you agree that simply saying "its what I recalled from a year ago" is not a defense?

Quote:

FD do you think you are making some sort of valid point repeating those questions I have already explained I will not be answering?

That will do. My point is that as a typical Muslim, you will avoid these questions.

Do you think Muhammed intended people to be confused about who to kill?

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

What would you think of a modern leader who issued an edict to kill people but left it a bit vague who to kill and under what circumstances?


Quote:

Have you worked out the reason - and the only reason - I am in this thread, and who is responsible for dragging me in to it?

I understand Gandalf. As a Muslim, you bear no responsibility for your own actions. It is my fault you find yourself discussing a difficult topic that you refuse to discuss.


Quote:

Am I correct to say that you didn't actually check this discussion from a year ago until after you blurted out that slanderous accusation about me?

There's no flies on you Gandalf.


Quote:

Do you see any problem with that - especially now that you are resorting to the "well it was a long time ago" defense?

My defence is that I think it is a pretty good precis of the post I quoted.

FD,

Quote:

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammad wants you to kill gays?

What was his policy on Pedophiles ?

to commit suicide?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 4:05pm:

That will do. My point is that as a typical Muslim, you will avoid these questions.

You'll keep telling yourself that questions already answered are not questions already answered. I have demonstrated to you on many occasions that your claims of me refusing to address certain issues are simply false. You would think you would learn, but you never will - and something I know for certain is that even if I answer the questions here that have already been done to death - you will simply come back in 6 months or a year and claim I never said anything on the matter, or that what I said was completely different to the reality.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 4:05pm:

I understand Gandalf. As a Muslim, you bear no responsibility for your own actions. It is my fault you find yourself discussing a difficult topic that you refuse to discuss.

It is my fault for having the temerity to defend myself against slander - yes I'll grant you that. But don't pretend I am here for any other reason.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 4:05pm:

There's no flies on you Gandalf.

I'll take that as a yes.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 4:05pm:

My defence is that I think it is a pretty good precis of the post I quoted.

Has it sunk in yet how that is not a defense at all for making up slanderous accusations? Since you are admitting now that you never even bothered to check the relevant discussion before you blurted out your accusation, do I really need to explain to you the problem here?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 4:05pm:

I understand Gandalf. As a Muslim, you bear no responsibility for your own actions.

Hang on, isn't that as it should be? I thought it was all the fault of Islam - as such, isn't that Gandalf's get outta Gaol free card?

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

What would you think of a modern leader who issued an edict to kill people but left it a bit vague who to kill and under what circumstances?


Quote:

You'll keep telling yourself that questions already answered are not questions already answered. I have demonstrated to you on many occasions that your claims of me refusing to address certain issues are simply false. You would think you would learn, but you never will - and something I know for certain is that even if I answer the questions here that have already been done to death - you will simply come back in 6 months or a year and claim I never said anything on the matter, or that what I said was completely different to the reality.

I do not recall ever asking you this prior to this thread Gandalf. Go ahead, prove me wrong, "again". Do you think Muhammed intended people to be confused about who to kill?


Quote:

Has it sunk in yet how that is not a defense at all for making up slanderous accusations?

I have the quote to back it up, and I have you refusing to explain how my interpretation of it is wrong. All you can do is point to where you offered a different version. Holding several positions at once on an issue is not a defence against being criticised for any one of those positions.


Quote:

Hang on, isn't that as it should be? I thought it was all the fault of Islam - as such, isn't that Gandalf's get outta Gaol free card?

I agree Phem, you are very confused. Have you figured out yet who those Aussie Muslims would be raping and slaughtering if they were no Muslims?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2015 at 8:01pm:

Do you see any problems with such blatant fabrications (inadvertent or not) when making such a big deal about "what muslims say"?

Not at all. FD's entire project is to make Muslims say what they don't say.

It's a work in progress. Sometimes a question is just a question.

Which we all know is strange, given the 2007 FD's insistence on the rules of debate that are intrinsic to our Freeeedom.

The 2015 FD believes in porkies. Today, the price of Freeeedom is eternal distortions.

Freewill, you see?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 6:58pm:

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

Under what circumstances will you accept the answers you've been given to this question for the last 3 years?

I'm curious.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 6:58pm:

I have the quote to back it up, and I have you refusing to explain how my interpretation of it is wrong.

Its really easy FD - its wrong because I never said anything about "flaunting" or "mardis gras style" - you literally made it all up. The post you quoted talked about debauchery and lust - would you describe gays flaunting their sexuality mardi-gras stye as equivalent to debauchery and lust? I certainly wouldn't, and I didn't. But more importantly, the post you quoted was made specifically as part of the same argument made in the previous post - where debauchery and lust had a very specific context - and that was the context of a complete moral breakdown - rape, murder etc - as was the case with Lut. The second post cannot be taken in isolation - but even if it was, cannot possibly be interpreted as referring to "flaunting...mardi gras style".

So you are in fact wrong on two counts - thanks for pointing that out.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 4:48pm:

FD, Quote: Under what circumstances do you think Muhammad wants you to kill gays? What was his policy on Pedophiles ? to commit suicide?

Ignoring the hard questions again - same old Gandalf.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 7:45pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 6:58pm: I have the quote to back it up, and I have you refusing to explain how my interpretation of it is wrong. Its really easy FD - its wrong because I never said anything about "flaunting" or "mardis gras style" - you literally made it all up. The post you quoted talked about debauchery and lust - would you describe gays flaunting their sexuality mardi-gras stye as equivalent to debauchery and lust? I certainly wouldn't, and I didn't. But more importantly, the post you quoted was made specifically as part of the same argument made in the previous post - where debauchery and lust had a very specific context - and that was the context of a complete moral breakdown - rape, murder etc - as was the case with Lut. The second post cannot be taken in isolation - but even if it was, cannot possibly be interpreted as referring to "flaunting...mardi gras style". So you are in fact wrong on two counts - thanks for pointing that out.

Now now, G, Muslims refuse to answer questions.

That's why FD asks them. Sometimes a question is just a question, remember. FD doesn't really want answers.

He just wants to avoid talking about his porkies.

Karnal wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 8:16pm:

He just wants to avoid talking about his porkies.

summed up to a tee

Bobby. wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 7:49pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:48pm: FD, Quote: Under what circumstances do you think Muhammad wants you to kill gays? What was his policy on Pedophiles ? to commit suicide? Ignoring the hard questions again - same old Gandalf.

Asking the same questions again.

Are you trying to join FD and Yadda?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 8:18pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 8:16pm: He just wants to avoid talking about his porkies. summed up to a tee

But more importantly, he wants to avoid why he relies so heavily on them.

Ask him that, G. FD won't even try to reply.

Sometimes a question is just a question, you see.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 8:18pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 8:16pm: He just wants to avoid talking about his porkies. summed up to a tee

Will gay marriage survive, come the ummah and sharia law, Gandy??  Paki BVgger?

I am curious, to coin a phrase.  Will the arse bandit-sharia alliance survive, come the sharia revolution?
Will sharia survive the coming of the BUM-IN-YOUR-MOHAMEDAN-FACE??
Or is there some underground alliance here, Musilm Arabs being well-known for being arse-bandits?


Thoughts??

Karnal wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 8:20pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 7:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:48pm: FD, Quote: Under what circumstances do you think Muhammad wants you to kill gays? What was his policy on Pedophiles ? to commit suicide? Ignoring the hard questions again - same old Gandalf. Asking the same questions again. Are you trying to join FD and Yadda?

Mussies don't like to mention Muhammad's rogering of a 9 year old girl.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 8:50pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 8:20pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 7:49pm: Bobby. wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 4:48pm: FD, Quote: Under what circumstances do you think Muhammad wants you to kill gays? What was his policy on Pedophiles ? to commit suicide? Ignoring the hard questions again - same old Gandalf. Asking the same questions again. Are you trying to join FD and Yadda? Mussies don't like to mention Muhammad's rogering of a 9 year old girl.

Is that why you asked?

Soren wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 8:25pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 8:18pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 4th, 2015 at 8:16pm: He just wants to avoid talking about his porkies. summed up to a tee Will gay marriage survive, come the ummah and sharia law, Gandy??  Paki BVgger? I am curious, to coin a phrase.  Will the arse bandit-sharia alliance survive, come the sharia revolution? Will sharia survive the coming of the BUM-IN-YOUR-MOHAMEDAN-FACE?? Or is there some underground alliance here, Musilm Arabs being well-known for being arse-bandits? Thoughts??

You're the only one campaigning for the coming of the ummah, old chap. Not even FD and Yadda think that's likely to happen.

It doesn't stop them spending their lives putting words in the mouths of Moslems, but at least they know they're safe here.

As do you, dear boy - Armenians and Ananda Margas excluded, of course.

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

What would you think of a modern leader who issued an edict to kill people but left it a bit vague who to kill and under what circumstances?

Do you think Muhammed intended people to be confused about who to kill?


Quote:

Under what circumstances will you accept the answers you've been given to this question for the last 3 years?

All of them? Pick one for me Karnal.


Quote:

Its really easy FD - its wrong because I never said anything about "flaunting" or "mardis gras style" - you literally made it all up.

I call it a precis of the more long winded version you gave. Am I wrong for using different words to say the same thing? Is the mind of a Muslim so impenetrable that the only way to capture their thoughts is with a quote?


Quote:

The post you quoted talked about debauchery and lust - would you describe gays flaunting their sexuality mardi-gras stye as equivalent to debauchery and lust? I certainly wouldn't, and I didn't.

You're talking about the dancing boys, aren't you?


Quote:

But more importantly, the post you quoted was made specifically as part of the same argument made in the previous post

Ah, you should have said. It looks more like another way of spinning it. I like the way you said that things have been said, but not by you, prior to you saying them.


Quote:

where debauchery and lust had a very specific context - and that was the context of a complete moral breakdown - rape, murder etc - as was the case with Lut

Giving and taking, no? That must be what Muhammed meant. You have to wave your arms in the air vaguely prior to executing the gays.


Quote:

The second post cannot be taken in isolation - but even if it was, cannot possibly be interpreted as referring to "flaunting...mardi gras style".

Yes it can. Would you like me to demonstrate?


Quote:

You're the only one campaigning for the coming of the ummah, old chap. Not even FD and Yadda think that's likely to happen.

Except of course for the one that just sprang up.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 10:01pm:

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays? What would you think of a modern leader who issued an edict to kill people but left it a bit vague who to kill and under what circumstances? Do you think Muhammed intended people to be confused about who to kill? Quote: Under what circumstances will you accept the answers you've been given to this question for the last 3 years? All of them? Pick one for me Karnal.

Why don't you just pick one for yourself? You've jotted them all down in your Wiki.

I'm wondering why you want to continue an argument you've had countless times. Are you expecting something different?

Or do you enjoy the endless repetition of it all?

I'm curious, FD, I really am.


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 10:01pm:

Quote: You're the only one campaigning for the coming of the ummah, old chap. Not even FD and Yadda think that's likely to happen. Except of course for the one that just sprang up.

Ah. The one at the ABC, eh?

Talk about cunning.

Quote:

Why don't you just pick one for yourself?

You may not have noticed, but that is how I 'tricked' Gandalf into posting here in this thread. We havne't heard the last of that one.


Quote:

I'm wondering why you want to continue an argument you've had countless times. Are you expecting something different?

It's been a year. I though Gandalf might have made up his mind on when to execute gays. Plus, I am interested in Gandalf's opinion on whether Muhammed was deliberately vague on who to kill, or if it is a shortcoming of Gandalf in failing to figure it out. This is something we did not touch on in any of the previous threads. Does this not interest you?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 10:16pm:

Plus, I am interested in Gandalf's opinion on whether Muhammed was deliberately vague on who to kill, or if it is a shortcoming of Gandalf in failing to figure it out. This is something we did not touch on in any of the previous threads. Does this not interest you?

Gandalf has provided his opinion/s, FD. His opinion is that it's not alright to kill gays ("the giver or the receiver").

It seems like you're trying to get him to say something he doesn't really think.

You must really miss Abu, eh?

Quote:

His opinion is that it's not alright to kill gays ("the giver or the receiver").

Unless of course they... (this is where you wave your arms in the air vaguely)

Correct me if I am wrong Gandalf.

Thanks for your input Karnal. It's always refreshing to get a straight answer on what Muslims think.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 10:33pm:

Quote: His opinion is that it's not alright to kill gays ("the giver or the receiver"). Unless of course they...

freediver wrote on Jun 27^th, 2015 at 10:38am:

...flaunt their homosexuality, mardis gras style (eg 'the people of Lot'). Is he the sort of Muslim you want to stand shoulder to shoulder with?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 10:33pm:

Thanks for your input Karnal. It's always refreshing to get a straight answer on what Muslims think.

No worries, FD, it's quite easy. I just read what they say.

You'd prefer to read what they don't say, no?

Questions questions.

Would you mind quoting Gandalf where he said it is not alright to kill gays?

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 10:49pm:

Would you mind quoting Gandalf where he said it is not alright to kill gays?

He said it's not alright to kill gays for being gays, FD. If you're asking me if he said it's alright to kill gays who are trying to kill you, I can't really say.

Do you want to ask me another question on what Gandalf thinks?

We can keep this going for a few pages until G stops ignoring you.

freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 6:58pm:

Quote: Hang on, isn't that as it should be? I thought it was all the fault of Islam - as such, isn't that Gandalf's get outta Gaol free card? I agree Phem, you are very confused. Have you figured out yet who those Aussie Muslims would be raping and slaughtering if they were no Muslims?

But then....


freediver wrote on Jul 4^th, 2015 at 3:58pm:

Quote: So, you do not support individuals being responsible for their own actions, decisions, words or errors? Of course.

I am not the confused one FD, it's ok though, I should imagine cognitive dissonance is very confusing - I think you could find help with that if you asked.

Have you figured out yet who those Aussie Muslims would be raping and slaughtering if they were no Muslims?


Quote:

He said it's not alright to kill gays for being gays, FD.

Thanks for clarifying Karnal. Can you quote him?

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 8:42am:

Have you figured out yet who those Aussie Muslims would be raping and slaughtering if they were no Muslims? Quote: He said it's not alright to kill gays for being gays, FD. Thanks for clarifying Karnal. Can you quote him?

From the same thread FD:


Quote:

And yet it wasn't a call to execute homosexuals. Why do you think he described them in the terms "doing as Lot's people did"? Do you think sodomy was unheard of in pre-islamic times that he had to make this reference? Do you think everyone at that time referred to sodomy as "doing as Lot's people did"? You demand a literal interpretation of the texts - well this is it - in literal terms, he is not calling for homosexuals to be executed, he is calling for people who did "as Lot's people did" to be executed - which included sodomy and debauchery, robbery, rape and generally flaunted God's laws. Its a whole package.

Would you agree thats saying its not alright to kill gays for being gays? Please, feel free to spin this quote beyond all meaning - we all know you want to.

And here's FD in the same thread - mocking my position of Islam tolerating true gay love - -but simultaneously not committing to a position. Funny how this "suggestion", that caused so much ridicule by FD at the time, didn't rate a mention here:


freediver wrote on Jun 13^th, 2014 at 7:08pm:

You are making crap up about Muhammed's command to execute homosexuals being a statement of peace of tolerance of true gay love. Then you are disowning it at the same time as promoting it.

Amazing isn't it? - that we can go from "ooh isn't Gandalf ridiculous for suggesting Islam tolerates gays for being gay" - to 12 months later - "Gandalf suggests that gays should be executed if they flaunt it mardi gras style".

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 10:51am:

freediver wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 8:42am: Have you figured out yet who those Aussie Muslims would be raping and slaughtering if they were no Muslims? Quote: He said it's not alright to kill gays for being gays, FD. Thanks for clarifying Karnal. Can you quote him? From the same thread FD: [quote]And yet it wasn't a call to execute homosexuals. Why do you think he described them in the terms "doing as Lot's people did"? Do you think sodomy was unheard of in pre-islamic times that he had to make this reference? Do you think everyone at that time referred to sodomy as "doing as Lot's people did"? You demand a literal interpretation of the texts - well this is it - in literal terms, he is not calling for homosexuals to be executed, he is calling for people who did "as Lot's people did" to be executed - which included sodomy and debauchery, robbery, rape and generally flaunted God's laws. Its a whole package.

Would you agree thats saying its not alright to kill gays for being gays? Please, feel free to spin this quote beyond all meaning - we all know you want to.[/quote]

So it is not OK to kill gays, but it is OK if you kill gays, rapists, thieves, debaucherers etc? You are not allowed to discriminate in who you kill?

From the other thread:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 12:44pm:

I'm not sure FD.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 1:54pm:

By the description, Muhammad is clearly talking about an act of sodomy, but is it necessarily any act of sodomy? In my view, the case has not been conclusively made.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 7:40pm:

FD he's obviously talking about sodomy. But the argument has been made (not by me) that he is only talking about sodomy that is borne out of lust and debauchery - not from genuine love and commitment. You've got to admit there is a legitimate question about why he refers to it as "anyone doing as Lot's people did" as opposed to simply saying "anyone who commits sodomy" Also, the quranic verses referring to Lot's people only refers to sodomy in the context of lust, no mention of sodomy in the context of genuine love and devotion.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 11:43am:

You could argue that the Quran would only ever describe sodomy in negative terms - fair enough. Its just a point of view though, equally as valid as saying that the Quran deliberately makes a distinction between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" types of sodomy.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 4:58pm:

So I ask, if mainstream muslims allow themselves to be fooled by so called "scholars" who take the longest stretch you can imagine in their interpretation of islamic texts to propogate their misogyny and intolerance and call it "islamic law" - I reckon its fair enough to take the same sort of liberties with things like homosexuality. Thats a crude way of putting it, but I hope you get my point.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 3:04pm:

The issue here is you taking my argument that The Prophet's ruling on those that did "as Lot's people did" may not necessarily be a ruling against homosexuality per se

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:31pm:

I'm quite happy to "own" the argument that The Prophet's ruling there may not necessarily be a ruling against homosexuality per se - like I've been saying all along. Exactly what did you think I was disowning FD?

Have you made up your mind yet Gandalf? Perhaps Muhammed meant you should kill Robin Hood. He was a taker and a giver.

Is it fair for me to take the same sort of liberties with what you say?

This is how you left the other thread:


freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:47pm:

So you don't actually know? What happened to all your a priori knowledge?

Are you still finding justification for claiming I "suggested" that gays should be killed for flaunting their sexuality "mardi gras style"?

Unbelievable - truly unbelievable FD - just take a look at yourself, honestly.

Would you like me to quote the relevant post again Gandalf?

Are you now saying you have made up your mind on who Muhammed wants you to kill? Or were you just being selective in your choice of previous stances? Perhaps you were merely taking liberties?

Just tell me this FD - how did you go from:

a) Silly Gandalf trying to justify Muhammad's command as a statement of gay pride

to 12 months later...

b) Look gay person - sinister Gandalf suggested gays who flaunt their sexuality gay pride should be executed - do you really want to be standing side by side with this monster??

You insisted it was not a statement of gay pride.

Have you made up your mind yet on whether Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

Am I responsible for all the different positions you have taken on the matter?

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

Have you made up your mind yet on whether Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

Sure - I even quoted you the relevant post - just today.


freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

Am I responsible for all the different positions you have taken on the matter?

You are responsible for slandering me with made up crap - made especially worse by your incredible "I can't be expected to know what you were saying" defense.

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

You insisted it was not a statement of gay pride. Have you made up your mind yet on whether Muhammed wants you to kill gays? Am I responsible for all the different positions you have taken on the matter?

Seen at London's gay pride parade:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/30/isis-dildo-flag-london-pride-cnn#img-2



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/30/isis-dildo-flag-london-pride-cnn#img-1


I won't be surprised if the apesh!t starts soon - mocking Mohammed's flag like that.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:10am:

And here's FD in the same thread - mocking my position of Islam tolerating true gay love - -but simultaneously not committing to a position. Funny how this "suggestion", that caused so much ridicule by FD at the time, didn't rate a mention here: freediver wrote on Jun 13th, 2014 at 7:08pm: You are making crap up about Muhammed's command to execute homosexuals being a statement of peace of tolerance of true gay love. Then you are disowning it at the same time as promoting it. Amazing isn't it? - that we can go from "ooh isn't Gandalf ridiculous for suggesting Islam tolerates gays for being gay" - to 12 months later - "Gandalf suggests that gays should be executed if they flaunt it mardi gras style".

Yes, G, but FD spent.those 12 months going through your posts word by word.

He had to come up with something.

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 8:42am:

Have you figured out yet who those Aussie Muslims would be raping and slaughtering if they were no Muslims? Quote: He said it's not alright to kill gays for being gays, FD. Thanks for clarifying Karnal. Can you quote him?

Sure can, FD. Gays.. flaunting... Mardi Gras... beheading...Start on the kuffars next... etc. etc. etc.

It’s all there.

You just have to read between the lines.

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:21am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 10:51am: freediver wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 8:42am: Have you figured out yet who those Aussie Muslims would be raping and slaughtering if they were no Muslims? Quote: He said it's not alright to kill gays for being gays, FD. Thanks for clarifying Karnal. Can you quote him? From the same thread FD: [quote]And yet it wasn't a call to execute homosexuals. Why do you think he described them in the terms "doing as Lot's people did"? Do you think sodomy was unheard of in pre-islamic times that he had to make this reference? Do you think everyone at that time referred to sodomy as "doing as Lot's people did"? You demand a literal interpretation of the texts - well this is it - in literal terms, he is not calling for homosexuals to be executed, he is calling for people who did "as Lot's people did" to be executed - which included sodomy and debauchery, robbery, rape and generally flaunted God's laws. Its a whole package. Would you agree thats saying its not alright to kill gays for being gays? Please, feel free to spin this quote beyond all meaning - we all know you want to.

So it is not OK to kill gays, but it is OK if you kill gays, rapists, thieves, debaucherers etc? You are not allowed to discriminate in who you kill?

From the other thread:


polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 12:44pm:

I'm not sure FD.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 1:54pm:

By the description, Muhammad is clearly talking about an act of sodomy, but is it necessarily any act of sodomy? In my view, the case has not been conclusively made.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 10^th, 2014 at 7:40pm:

FD he's obviously talking about sodomy. But the argument has been made (not by me) that he is only talking about sodomy that is borne out of lust and debauchery - not from genuine love and commitment. You've got to admit there is a legitimate question about why he refers to it as "anyone doing as Lot's people did" as opposed to simply saying "anyone who commits sodomy" Also, the quranic verses referring to Lot's people only refers to sodomy in the context of lust, no mention of sodomy in the context of genuine love and devotion.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 11:43am:

You could argue that the Quran would only ever describe sodomy in negative terms - fair enough. Its just a point of view though, equally as valid as saying that the Quran deliberately makes a distinction between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" types of sodomy.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 11^th, 2014 at 4:58pm:

So I ask, if mainstream muslims allow themselves to be fooled by so called "scholars" who take the longest stretch you can imagine in their interpretation of islamic texts to propogate their misogyny and intolerance and call it "islamic law" - I reckon its fair enough to take the same sort of liberties with things like homosexuality. Thats a crude way of putting it, but I hope you get my point.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 3:04pm:

The issue here is you taking my argument that The Prophet's ruling on those that did "as Lot's people did" may not necessarily be a ruling against homosexuality per se

polite_gandalf wrote on Jun 14^th, 2014 at 6:31pm:

I'm quite happy to "own" the argument that The Prophet's ruling there may not necessarily be a ruling against homosexuality per se - like I've been saying all along. Exactly what did you think I was disowning FD?

Looks like you knew G’s opinion/s all along, FD.

Testing us, were you?

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 12:11pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 11:57am: Have you made up your mind yet on whether Muhammed wants you to kill gays? Sure - I even quoted you the relevant post - just today. freediver wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 11:57am: Am I responsible for all the different positions you have taken on the matter? You are responsible for slandering me with made up crap - made especially worse by your incredible "I can't be expected to know what you were saying" defense.

Freeeedom, innit.

Quote:

Sure - I even quoted you the relevant post - just today.

Would that be a post from 2014, after which you posted several alternative positions? The one where you said it is not OK to kill gays, but it is OK to kill gays and lots of other people? No wonder you refuse to talk about it any more.


Quote:

You are responsible for slandering me with made up crap - made especially worse by your incredible "I can't be expected to know what you were saying" defense.

When did I say that Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 6:00pm:

Would that be a post from 2014, after which you posted several alternative positions? The one where you said it is not OK to kill gays, but it is OK to kill gays and lots of other people? No wonder you refuse to talk about it any more.

Remember the golden rule: if in doubt, just invent something slanderous

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 6:00pm:

Quote: Sure - I even quoted you the relevant post - just today. Would that be a post from 2014, after which you posted several alternative positions? The one where you said it is not OK to kill gays, but it is OK to kill gays and lots of other people? No wonder you refuse to talk about it any more.

Thanks for clarifying, FD. Can you quote him?

Would you accuse me of lying and slandering your impeccable reputation if I interpreted that post as you claiming it is OK to kill gays so long as you kill a few other people as well?

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 6:16pm:

Would you accuse me of lying and slandering your impeccable reputation if I interpreted that post as you claiming it is OK to kill gays so long as you kill a few other people as well?

Which post, FD? I’m most curious.

FD doesn't need a post - he'll just make up some crap based on some vague recollection of a conversation he had a year ago. Then when he produces the quote that says nothing like what he claimed - he'll simply rely on his tried and true skills of endless obfuscation and staying power - until everyone is too bored to bother any more.

I am happy to discuss the interpretation of either of those two posts Gandalf, and I have directly in this thread already. It seems our only choice, given that you refuse to talk about this topic any more and for some reason have resorted to interpreting your own previous vague waffle from last year rather than simply stating your position.

Speaking of obfuscation:

Under what circumstances do you think Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

What would you think of a modern leader who issued an edict to kill people but left it a bit vague who to kill and under what circumstances?

Do you think Muhammed intended people to be confused about who to kill?

The forum search function is terrible.  Try using search terms before writing site:ozpolitic.com in Google. 

There are a few tricks to getting it to work for you.

Secret Wars wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 6:43pm:

The forum search function is terrible.  Try using search terms before writing site:ozpolitic.com in Google.

Yes, that’s why FD posts all the quotes he’s referencing in the Wiki.

It’s not that he can’t be bothered finding them, he just doesn’t want you to see them.

FD, you see, is interested in the truth beyond the words. The old boy calls this intelligence and integrity. FD calls it Freeeedom.

The rest of us know the phenomenon as porkie pies. Like the old boy, FD refuses to rule them out. They’re an integral part of what he calls his criticism of Islam.

Remember, sometimes a porkie is just a porkie.

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 6:42pm:

am happy to discuss the interpretation of either of those two posts Gandalf

Oh we know FD - you'll gleefully "discuss" till kingdom come what is a very simple case of outrageous slander until it becomes the most confusing issue in the world. You'll make darn certain that you've thoroughly obfuscated the point beyond all meaning, until everyone's completely confused about what it was we were ever even talking about. Then you'll mark it down as yet another example of a sinister muslim being evasive and tricky - and you'll declare mission accomplished. Thats what you do FD. And the really sad part? You probably don't even realise yourself any more thats what you do.

Perhaps the solution is to get FD 2007 to join in and give his 2 cents worth - what do you think he'd say?

Quote:

Oh we know FD - you'll gleefully "discuss" till kingdom come what is a very simple case of outrageous slander until it becomes the most confusing issue in the world.

It is only confusing because no matter what quote of yours I find to back up what I say about you, you can find a quote of yourself saying something completely different. Instead of endless arguments about which of the 2014 Gandalfs is the real Gandalf, why don't you just make up your mind on who Muhammed wants you to kill?


Quote:

You'll make darn certain that you've thoroughly obfuscated the point beyond all meaning, until everyone's completely confused about what it was we were ever even talking about.

We are talking about killing gays Gandalf. This is only lost on you.


Quote:

Then you'll mark it down as yet another example of a sinister muslim being evasive and tricky

Gosh, how on earth can I get away with that?

Have you figured out yet under what circumstances Muhammed wants you to kill gays?

What would you think of a modern leader who issued an edict to kill people but left it a bit vague who to kill and under what circumstances?

Do you think Muhammed intended people to be confused about who to kill?


Quote:

and you'll declare mission accomplished

It is hardly accomplished Gandalf. I was thinking of starting a new thread, so you could not accuse me of "tricking" you into participating. I've got some good ideas for the thread title. Want to hear them?

freediver wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 9:56pm:

Quote: Oh we know FD - you'll gleefully "discuss" till kingdom come what is a very simple case of outrageous slander until it becomes the most confusing issue in the world. It is only confusing because no matter what quote of yours I find to back up what I say about you, you can find a quote of yourself saying something completely different.

That’s true, FD. And they happen to be the same post, no?

Do try to keep up Karnal.

Thanks, FD, I’ll try.

To summarize,, Gandalf’s saying he wants to kill hommersexuals, both the giver and receiver.

And not just them. Infidels, kuffars, disbelievers, the debauched, idolators, fornicators, hypocrites, Jews,, trecherous Jews, the children of Lot, fellow Moslems, you name it. No one’s safe around G.

I do feel we’re moving on in the discussion, don’t you?

Gandalf said a lot of things, none of which make much sense.

You should try asking him.

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:37pm:

Thanks, FD, I’ll try. To summarize,, Gandalf’s saying he wants to kill hommersexuals, both the giver and receiver. And not just them. Infidels, kuffars, disbelievers, the debauched, idolators, fornicators, hypocrites, Jews,, trecherous Jews, the children of Lot, fellow Moslems, you name it. No one’s safe around G. I do feel we’re moving on in the discussion, don’t you?

It's God's plan.

No one is safe - no one gets to go to heaven.

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 8:49am:

Gandalf said a lot of things, none of which make much sense. You should try asking him.

That’s what we do, FD. Again and again and again.

You’re helping G to make much sense, no?

How come when I try asking you, you avoid the question?

I’m curious.

Karnal wrote on Jul 5^th, 2015 at 11:37pm:

Thanks, FD, I’ll try. To summarize,, Gandalf’s saying he wants to kill hommersexuals, both the giver and receiver. And not just them. Infidels, kuffars, disbelievers, the debauched, idolators, fornicators, hypocrites, Jews,, trecherous Jews, the children of Lot, fellow Moslems, you name it. No one’s safe around G.

K,

gandalf is a restrained moslem,         a moslem who is living under the restraint of a secular jurisdiction, under the restraint of un-ISLAMIC laws.


Below, i provide examples of the restrained moslem, and then, of the rampant [un-restrained] moslem.


Dictionary;
restrain = = prevent from doing something; keep under control or within limits.     deprive of freedom of movement or personal liberty.



Dictionary;
rampant = =
1 flourishing or spreading unchecked.
2 unrestrained in action or performance.





An example of the restrained moslem,     in Australia      [i.e. a moslem who is being restrained,    .....by secular, un-ISLAMIC laws].

------------ >


Quote:

"Peace summarises everything in Islam, because it means submitting your will to God, so you acquire peace through it," he said. "When I'm following its [i.e. ISLAM's] teachings, I know that my own actions are in line     with what my creator wants, and hence I am at peace with myself, [with] my community and the rest of the world."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-19/darwins-muslim-community-tackles-discrimination-at-meeting/6025586?section=nt



EXAMPLE - of a moslem engaging in, a 'peaceful' 'stealth' Jihad, here in Australia, FALSELY promoting ISLAM as a 'peaceful' faith.....

------------- >

IMAGE....
http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5814780-3x2-700x467.jpg

"Mr Yunus has been encouraging peaceful community bridging since starting his post as Darwin's Islamic leader in 2014."

Mr Yunus is a typical moslem.

Mr Yunus is a very typical follower of ISLAM.

"Peace summarises everything in Islam..."
- Mr Yunus





.





An example of the rampant [un-restrained] moslem.

------------ >


Jihad is lawful.

Jihad is virtuous.

Jihad = = 'virtuously' murdering those who reject ISLAM

--------- >

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/25/article-0-1FF53F8400000578-353_634x351.jpg

'Aussie' moslem, Mohamed Elomar, in Syria/Iraq.

Mohamed Elomar is just an ordinary typical moslem, doing 'good works', in 'the cause of Allah',     and dutifully following the dictates of what Sharia law requires     [when un-restrained by a secular jurisdiction].

freediver wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 8:49am:

Gandalf said a lot of things, none of which make much sense.

Sorry FD - are you saying you slandered me with stuff that made little sense to you?

Yadda wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 10:20am:

Karnal wrote on Jul 5th, 2015 at 11:37pm: Thanks, FD, I’ll try. To summarize,, Gandalf’s saying he wants to kill hommersexuals, both the giver and receiver. And not just them. Infidels, kuffars, disbelievers, the debauched, idolators, fornicators, hypocrites, Jews,, trecherous Jews, the children of Lot, fellow Moslems, you name it. No one’s safe around G. K, gandalf is a restrained moslem,         a moslem who is living under the restraint of a secular jurisdiction, under the restraint of un-ISLAMIC laws.

K,

n.b.
gandalf declares himself to be, a moslem.



Dictionary;
ummah = = the whole community of Muslims bound together by ties of religion.

Dictionary;
Islam = = the religion of the Muslims, a monotheistic faith regarded as revealed through Muhammad as the Prophet of Allah.

Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.



Who can tell how gandalf would behave, if he were able to live in the 'ideal' Sharia jurisdiction of his own choosing.

Only gandalf would know,       how he would behave, if he was not restrained by un-ISLAMIC, secular laws.




" The Prophet said, "War is deceit." "
hadith/bukhari/ #004.052.269

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 6^th, 2015 at 10:35am:

freediver wrote on Jul 6th, 2015 at 8:49am: Gandalf said a lot of things, none of which make much sense. Sorry FD - are you saying you slandered me with stuff that made little sense to you?

That must be it. FD must have been mistaken about what you said. When you said you don't believe gays should be killed (both the giver and receiver), FD thought you meant they should be killed along with everyone else who refuses to submit to Islam.

It's an easy mistake to make.

Of course, never would anyone of Christian/British stock, or an Australian for that matter be a party to beheadings in this Country.  Nah, never.  No bloody way.  We kill using far more civilised methods and never, ever beheading.

Aussie wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 4:30pm:

Of course, never would anyone of Christian/British stock, or an Australian for that matter be a party to beheadings in this Country.  Nah, never.  No bloody way.  We kill using far more civilised methods and never, ever beheading.

https://riseuptimes.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/how-can-you-have-a-war-on-terrorism-howard-zinn.jpg

War is War. Terrorism is terrorism. Two different things. The war was declared by Islam against the West in the 1990s. Terrorism is just a way of getting around using the M word.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 10:06pm:

Aussie wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 4:30pm: Of course, never would anyone of Christian/British stock, or an Australian for that matter be a party to beheadings in this Country.  Nah, never.  No bloody way.  We kill using far more civilised methods and never, ever beheading. https://riseuptimes.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/how-can-you-have-a-war-on-terrorism-howard-zinn.jpg

TEHRAN (FNA)- A leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant terrorist group and two of his assistants were killed in Northeastern Baquba when a bomb placed by rival terrorists exploded.

issuevoter wrote on Jul 7^th, 2015 at 11:54pm:

War is War. Terrorism is terrorism. Two different things. The war was declared by Islam against the West in the 1990s. Terrorism is just a way of getting around using the M word.

Thanks Issue - I'm sure the Iraqis who continue to see the effects of the disastrous 2003 invasion will appreciate that distinction.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10^th, 2015 at 8:13am:

issuevoter wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 11:54pm: War is War. Terrorism is terrorism. Two different things. The war was declared by Islam against the West in the 1990s. Terrorism is just a way of getting around using the M word. Thanks Issue - I'm sure the Iraqis who continue to see the effects of the disastrous 2003 invasion will appreciate that distinction.

No no, they need to be grateful.

Uncle brought them ISIS.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jul 10^th, 2015 at 8:13am:

issuevoter wrote on Jul 7th, 2015 at 11:54pm: War is War. Terrorism is terrorism. Two different things. The war was declared by Islam against the West in the 1990s. Terrorism is just a way of getting around using the M word. Thanks Issue - I'm sure the Iraqis who continue to see the effects of the disastrous 2003 invasion will appreciate that distinction.

No contest. The Iraq invasion was a political ploy on the part of the Bush Admin. It does not change the fact that your people declared War on the West.

So now wars that kill hundreds of thousands and displace millions are mere "political ploys". Interesting.

It must be hard for muslims living in France when the people around you hate your guts and want you to leave.

double plus good wrote on Jul 11^th, 2015 at 2:39pm:

It must be hard for muslims living in France when the people around you hate your guts and want you to leave.

It must be even harder for the French, living in France,      when there are people living among you, who are protected by French laws,       but who hate your French 'guts' and want to overthrow your society, to overthrow your lawful political sovereignty [over your own land], and want to kill you.



Google;
france, muslim, no-go areas

Lawlessness, thy name is 'moslem' [living in a non-moslem host nation].




The growing reality is that moslems are trying to establish no-go areas, for non-muslims, in Europe.


Supporting evidence....

Belgium - Militant Muslims
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-inob20I_Y0


[must see] Muslims conquer Europe, French people have had enough
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eABe3HNTK0


Violence, threats, intimidation - Europe under siege by Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DSEbBzZ8rg