Australian Politics Forum - spineless apologetics

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52692
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2535 - Sep 28^th, 2019 at 9:00pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 28^th, 2019 at 12:50am:

We're still trying to understand what ORF means, dear boy. We'll get GCHQ onto it.

In the meantime, do you you have any jolly pictures of Afghan schoolgirls? 8 year olds if you please. One being shot in the back of the head will suffice.

I know, so morbid. Do you have a link?

You know, to back up your claim.

Sound it out, mong:

Now F ORF, gandalf. You too, Paki. (Yes, that's you, Paki. F ORF.)

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2536 - Oct 1^st, 2019 at 9:53am

freediver wrote on Sep 27^th, 2019 at 6:02pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 27^th, 2019 at 12:04pm:

So thats Frank FD, would you care to explain your own attrocious behaviour on this?

When you mockingly stated that gandalf would not consider Frank's evidence "good enough", with specific reference to a woman in a letterbox outfit being shot (gosh whatever were you referring to FD - perhaps the Time Magazine article??) - why did you say this other than to insinuate that the one link of Frank's that could possibly be misconstrued as a 'school girl' being shot by a talib - was all the proof you needed that the taliban shot school girls (presumably for the high crime of attending school)?

Is it fair to say that becacuse of your deep seated prejudice you 'jumped the gun' on this picture and, against your better judgement, rashly assumed it was of a school girl being executed for going to school - without even bothering to check the readily available context of the picture?

When I said that you would say that it is not good enough, what I meant is that you would say it is not good enough. And you have pretty much proven my point about why.

And why did you ask FD? - if not to imply that you thought it *WAS* good enough? Do you actually think a blatantly misrepresented picture is "good enough" evidence for your BS claim that school girls were shot? Even after it turned out not to be a school girl being shot?

I've askd you this about 4 times FD and you still haven't answered. Why is this?

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2537 - Oct 1^st, 2019 at 10:14am

Frank wrote on Sep 27^th, 2019 at 7:19pm:

I was not lying and claimed what you are now trying to twist, knowingly. My post had pictures from the Wikipedia article on women's treatment by the Taliban in Afghanistan. I also posted an article from Time.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1567134066/246#246

Oh look he's at it again.

Can you believe how snivellingly sneaky he tries to be? How pathetic can you get Frank?

So its really the picture of the women getting beaten, or perhaps the Time Magazine article which curiously has no mention of anyone getting shot. He's not quite sure yet. But anything to desperately try and muddy the waters eh. Even if it is so blatantly transparent.

Frank lets revisit what you actually said so we don't get drawn into that rabbit hole you are so desperately trying to bring us down: Here is it, word for word:

What was the fate of the Talib who shot this particular school girl?

Perhaps we need to emphasise the key words in this:

What was the fate of the Talib
who shot
this particular school girl
?

Why are they key? Because, you sneaky, snivelling little fibber - neither your picture of the women getting beaten by a talib, nor the Time Magazine article depict or mention in any way any school girl getting shot. The only - I repeat only link in that post that can even remotely be [mis]construed as a school girl getting shot - is the picture of the burka-clad woman being shot in the back of the head. And you told a nasty, sneaky, snivelling fib about it - attempting to pass off a woman being executed for murder, as a school girl being executed for going to school.

Now listen here my snivelling, sneaky little fibber - if you think I am being unfair on you, and that the charge of snivelling sneaky fibber is unjustified - consider just this: given that neither the Time Magazine article, nor the other "pictures from the Wikipedia article on women's treatment by the Taliban in Afghanistan" have anything at all to do with school girls getting shot by any talib - why on earth would you mention them as some sort of defence against the charge that you were lying about a school girl getting shot by a talib? Were you hoping there would be enough doubt about whether or not either of those sources depicted in any way a school girl getting shot by a talib?

tsk tsk, sneaky snivelling little fibber. But don't worry, you'll always have FD here to spinelessly apologise for you.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51227
At my desk.

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2538 - Oct 6^th, 2019 at 8:19am

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 1^st, 2019 at 9:53am:

freediver wrote on Sep 27^th, 2019 at 6:02pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 27^th, 2019 at 12:04pm:

So thats Frank FD, would you care to explain your own attrocious behaviour on this?

When you mockingly stated that gandalf would not consider Frank's evidence "good enough", with specific reference to a woman in a letterbox outfit being shot (gosh whatever were you referring to FD - perhaps the Time Magazine article??) - why did you say this other than to insinuate that the one link of Frank's that could possibly be misconstrued as a 'school girl' being shot by a talib - was all the proof you needed that the taliban shot school girls (presumably for the high crime of attending school)?

Is it fair to say that becacuse of your deep seated prejudice you 'jumped the gun' on this picture and, against your better judgement, rashly assumed it was of a school girl being executed for going to school - without even bothering to check the readily available context of the picture?

When I said that you would say that it is not good enough, what I meant is that you would say it is not good enough. And you have pretty much proven my point about why.

And why did you ask FD? - if not to imply that you thought it *WAS* good enough? Do you actually think a blatantly misrepresented picture is "good enough" evidence for your BS claim that school girls were shot? Even after it turned out not to be a school girl being shot?

I've askd you this about 4 times FD and you still haven't answered. Why is this?

What did I ask?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98819

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2539 - Oct 6^th, 2019 at 11:40am

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 1^st, 2019 at 10:14am:

Frank wrote on Sep 27^th, 2019 at 7:19pm:

I was not lying and claimed what you are now trying to twist, knowingly. My post had pictures from the Wikipedia article on women's treatment by the Taliban in Afghanistan. I also posted an article from Time.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1567134066/246#246

Oh look he's at it again.

Can you believe how snivellingly sneaky he tries to be? How pathetic can you get Frank?

So its really the picture of the women getting beaten, or perhaps the Time Magazine article which curiously has no mention of anyone getting shot. He's not quite sure yet. But anything to desperately try and muddy the waters eh. Even if it is so blatantly transparent.

Frank lets revisit what you actually said so we don't get drawn into that rabbit hole you are so desperately trying to bring us down: Here is it, word for word:

What was the fate of the Talib who shot this particular school girl?

Perhaps we need to emphasise the key words in this:

What was the fate of the Talib
who shot
this particular school girl
?

Why are they key? Because, you sneaky, snivelling little fibber - neither your picture of the women getting beaten by a talib, nor the Time Magazine article depict or mention in any way any school girl getting shot. The only - I repeat only link in that post that can even remotely be [mis]construed as a school girl getting shot - is the picture of the burka-clad woman being shot in the back of the head. And you told a nasty, sneaky, snivelling fib about it - attempting to pass off a woman being executed for murder, as a school girl being executed for going to school.

Now listen here my snivelling, sneaky little fibber - if you think I am being unfair on you, and that the charge of snivelling sneaky fibber is unjustified - consider just this: given that neither the Time Magazine article, nor the other "pictures from the Wikipedia article on women's treatment by the Taliban in Afghanistan" have anything at all to do with school girls getting shot by any talib - why on earth would you mention them as some sort of defence against the charge that you were lying about a school girl getting shot by a talib? Were you hoping there would be enough doubt about whether or not either of those sources depicted in any way a school girl getting shot by a talib?

tsk tsk, sneaky snivelling little fibber. But don't worry, you'll always have FD here to spinelessly apologise for you.

That's abuse, G. You're trying to censor the old boy's criticism of Islam. So Muselman of you, so unfair.

No one has the right to not be offended, innit.

Back to top

IP Logged

moses

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6353

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2540 - Oct 6^th, 2019 at 2:23pm

Who exactly gives a rats ask-your-mother-for-sixpence, if it was a girl woman kid man whatever, muzzies kill people on a daily basis globally, that's a fact.

Why aren't there any cries of outrage by our muzzies and loony lefties over child sexual abuse?

Thighing of Female Children in Islam
By Dr. Thomas Ahmed

According to an official Fatwa issued in Saudi Arabia, the prophet Muhammad began to practice thighing his child-bride, Aisha when she was six years old until she reached nine years of age (Fatwa No. 31409).

Therefore, Muslim scholars collectively agree, by virtue of divine example,

there are many types of thighing. They are all done by an adult man to a female child. There are the evil practices of the altamatu’a bil almufakhaza (pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs), altamatu’a bil almuka’aba (pleasure from sexual contact with her breasts), altamatu’a bil alsagirah (pleasure from sexual contact with a baby girl), altamatu’a bil alradi’ah, (pleasure from sexual contact with a suckling female infant),

Virtue by divine example.

What a bunch of degenerate retards muslims are.

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98819

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2541 - Oct 7^th, 2019 at 9:41am

moses wrote on Oct 6^th, 2019 at 4:48pm:

Support?

I would hardly call my feelings support.

Common sense dictates that the nations of the globe have to achieve some sort of working relationship with each other.

My govt interacts with muslims, just as we do with the Chinese, Russians, Nth Koreans etc.

Them and other equally obnoxious nations are all players on the world stage, who are worked with by the west.

I merely hope my govt. does what is in my best interests, when conducting their business with the objectionable elements on the world stage.

All muzzies are equally as bad as each other in my book, I don't *support* any of them. I continually call for them to reform their doctrine of evil (islam). This as I've often said will actually destroy islam, then there will be major changes in the way the present day muslims conduct themselves.

So support? NO.

Interact through my govt.? Yes.

Constantly call for them to advance into the 21st century, to own question and purge their death cult evils? Yes.

Do I know this will destroy islam and their 1400 year old death cult culture? Yes.

So come on abu decry the evils in the doctrine of islam, stop making excuses.

Back to top

IP Logged

moses

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6353

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2542 - Oct 7^th, 2019 at 3:12pm

I reiterate:

moses wrote on Oct 6^th, 2019 at 2:23pm:

Who exactly gives a rats ask-your-mother-for-sixpence, if it was a girl woman kid man whatever, muzzies kill people on a daily basis globally, that's a fact.

Why aren't there any cries of outrage by our muzzies and loony lefties over child sexual abuse?

Thighing of Female Children in Islam
By Dr. Thomas Ahmed

According to an official Fatwa issued in Saudi Arabia, the prophet Muhammad began to practice thighing his child-bride, Aisha when she was six years old until she reached nine years of age (Fatwa No. 31409).

Therefore, Muslim scholars collectively agree, by virtue of divine example,

there are many types of thighing. They are all done by an adult man to a female child. There are the evil practices of the altamatu’a bil almufakhaza (pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs), altamatu’a bil almuka’aba (pleasure from sexual contact with her breasts), altamatu’a bil alsagirah (pleasure from sexual contact with a baby girl), altamatu’a bil alradi’ah, (pleasure from sexual contact with a suckling female infant),

Virtue by divine example.

What a bunch of degenerate retards muslims are.

Abu, where are your cries of outrage over the sick disgusting muslim practice of, having sex with little girls in nappies, because their *prophet* gave it the O.K. by divine example?

islam is the cause and motivation for all the muslim problems today 2019, it has to be honestly cleaned up, the putrid evilness of islam has to be denounced and purged.

Do you want to end the islamic turpitude or not?

Back to top

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98819

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2543 - Oct 7^th, 2019 at 5:14pm

moses wrote on Oct 7^th, 2019 at 3:12pm:

I reiterate:

moses wrote on Oct 6^th, 2019 at 2:23pm:

Who exactly gives a rats ask-your-mother-for-sixpence, if it was a girl woman kid man whatever, muzzies kill people on a daily basis globally, that's a fact.

Why aren't there any cries of outrage by our muzzies and loony lefties over child sexual abuse?

Thighing of Female Children in Islam
By Dr. Thomas Ahmed

According to an official Fatwa issued in Saudi Arabia, the prophet Muhammad began to practice thighing his child-bride, Aisha when she was six years old until she reached nine years of age (Fatwa No. 31409).

Therefore, Muslim scholars collectively agree, by virtue of divine example,

there are many types of thighing. They are all done by an adult man to a female child. There are the evil practices of the altamatu’a bil almufakhaza (pleasure from sexual contact with her thighs), altamatu’a bil almuka’aba (pleasure from sexual contact with her breasts), altamatu’a bil alsagirah (pleasure from sexual contact with a baby girl), altamatu’a bil alradi’ah, (pleasure from sexual contact with a suckling female infant),

Virtue by divine example.

What a bunch of degenerate retards muslims are.

Abu, where are your cries of outrage over the sick disgusting muslim practice of, having sex with little girls in nappies, because their *prophet* gave it the O.K. by divine example?

islam is the cause and motivation for all the muslim problems today 2019, it has to be honestly cleaned up, the putrid evilness of islam has to be denounced and purged.

Do you want to end the islamic turpitude or not?

Where is your outrage in your government supporting the only Islamicist regime with no age of consent? You condemn a state with an age of consent at 15, but refuse to discuss the one with zero.

Then you carry on about blaming Islam while you support said-state being armed and backed as our man in the Middle East.

You invoke the image of little girls in nappies being raped, but it's just show. Your hysteria is fake. You'd support the Taliban if you were told to.

After all, you support the most backward Islamicist regime in the world.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52692
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2544 - Oct 8^th, 2019 at 6:38pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 1^st, 2019 at 10:14am:

Frank wrote on Sep 27^th, 2019 at 7:19pm:

I was not lying and claimed what you are now trying to twist, knowingly. My post had pictures from the Wikipedia article on women's treatment by the Taliban in Afghanistan. I also posted an article from Time.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1567134066/246#246

Oh look he's at it again.

Can you believe how snivellingly sneaky he tries to be? How pathetic can you get Frank?

So its really the picture of the women getting beaten, or perhaps the Time Magazine article which curiously has no mention of anyone getting shot. He's not quite sure yet. But anything to desperately try and muddy the waters eh. Even if it is so blatantly transparent.

Frank lets revisit what you actually said so we don't get drawn into that rabbit hole you are so desperately trying to bring us down: Here is it, word for word:

What was the fate of the Talib who shot this particular school girl?

Perhaps we need to emphasise the key words in this:

What was the fate of the Talib
who shot
this particular school girl
?

Why are they key? Because, you sneaky, snivelling little fibber - neither your picture of the women getting beaten by a talib, nor the Time Magazine article depict or mention in any way any school girl getting shot. The only - I repeat only link in that post that can even remotely be [mis]construed as a school girl getting shot - is the picture of the burka-clad woman being shot in the back of the head. And you told a nasty, sneaky, snivelling fib about it - attempting to pass off a woman being executed for murder, as a school girl being executed for going to school.

Now listen here my snivelling, sneaky little fibber - if you think I am being unfair on you, and that the charge of snivelling sneaky fibber is unjustified - consider just this: given that neither the Time Magazine article, nor the other "pictures from the Wikipedia article on women's treatment by the Taliban in Afghanistan" have anything at all to do with school girls getting shot by any talib - why on earth would you mention them as some sort of defence against the charge that you were lying about a school girl getting shot by a talib? Were you hoping there would be enough doubt about whether or not either of those sources depicted in any way a school girl getting shot by a talib?

tsk tsk, sneaky snivelling little fibber. But don't worry, you'll always have FD here to spinelessly apologise for you.

You can fap to the Koran as much as you like, convert. I asked the question about what happens to the Talib who shot the schoolgirl in the head because you or your idiotic offsider, the Paki arse bandit (what's that symbiosis about??), was on about 'no such Taliban policy' to persecute girls going to school.

SO my question was about what happened to the Talib who, according to your lying idiocy, 'acted outside Taliban policy' by shooting that schoolgirl in the head. Nothing happened to him. Your idiotic objection about 'policy' was shown to be just that, stupid, lying diversion and distraction.

It is, of course, entirely typical of the blinkered, cornered sons of Mohammed like you to wage the jihad of defending the indefensible. That's all you ever do here, Saracen (your Calabrian/Sicialian genes and your reversion to Islam finally converging).

You are endlessly mouthing off in defence of the indefencible aspects of Mohammed, the Koran, other Muslims, including school-girl murderers. That's YOUR cowardly, lying keyboard jihad.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52692
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2545 - Oct 8^th, 2019 at 7:06pm

Karnal wrote on Sep 6^th, 2019 at 7:37pm:

The claim here is that the Taliban raided schools. They then pulled 8 year old girls out of classrooms, lined them up and, one by one, shot them in the back of the head.

They did this regularly, routinely. It was official Taliban policy.

And do you know? It's krap. I'm willing to put money down that any Taliban soldier who deliberately shot an 8 year old girl would have been taken off and shot himself.

Oh? They'll say. How are you going to prove that?

Ah.

Typical Paki lies. No surprise, though, that the Paki arse bandit is now defending the Taliban and fundamentalist Islamic jihadists. What was the fate of the Talib who shot this particular school girl? Was not taken off and shot. You lie as a matter of policy. Dishonesty is at the absolute essence of all your utterances, Paki.

Cave dwelling goat-bothering sons of Mohammed have no policy website - so killing and intimidating girls cannot be classified as a 'policy' for lying Pakis like you. That Islam classifies women as second rate is not on the Taliban policy web page so for a lying advocate for Islamism like you it doesn't exist. Your depravity and bad faith and dishonesty is limitless, Paki.

https://time.com/5472411/afghanistan-women-justice-war/

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98819

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2546 - Oct 8^th, 2019 at 7:14pm

There you go, G. It's silly old Abu's fault. Frank was just rebutting my claim about the Taliban's treatment of women in general, you see.

He just missed the bit where I described 8 year old girls being rounded up and shot in the back of the head for being caught in a classroom.

He must have thought I was referring to women being shot in the back of the head for murdering their husbands.

An easy mishtake to make, no?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 8^th, 2019 at 7:21pm by Karnal »

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52692
Gender: male

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2547 - Oct 8^th, 2019 at 8:46pm

Karnal wrote on Oct 8^th, 2019 at 7:14pm:

There you go, G. It's silly old Abu's fault. Frank was just rebutting my claim about the Taliban's treatment of women in general, you see.

He just missed the bit where I described 8 year old girls being rounded up and shot in the back of the head for being caught in a classroom.

He must have thought I was referring to women being shot in the back of the head for murdering their husbands.

An easy mishtake to make, no?

There you go, son of Mohammed, it's the cock slobbering arse bandits who are championing your jihad.
What's their fate, come da worldwide triumph of Allah?

The alliance the pseudo marxists and the Allahu Akhbarers. Zeitgeist of the world shakers of our time. Get a tranny for a trifecta.

BWIAAAN!!

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 9^th, 2019 at 5:12pm by Frank »

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 98819

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2548 - Oct 8^th, 2019 at 10:01pm

Frank wrote on Oct 8^th, 2019 at 8:46pm:

Karnal wrote on Oct 8^th, 2019 at 7:14pm:

There you go, G. It's silly old Abu's fault. Frank was just rebutting my claim about the Taliban's treatment of women in general, you see.

He just missed the bit where I described 8 year old girls being rounded up and shot in the back of the head for being caught in a classroom.

He must have thought I was referring to women being shot in the back of the head for murdering their husbands.

An easy mishtake to make, no?

There you go, son of Mohammed, it's the cock slobbering arse bandits who are championing your jihad.
What's their fate, come te worldwide triumph of Allah?

Hard to say, old boy.

Do you have a photo?

Back to top

IP Logged

moses

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6353

Re: spineless apologetics
Reply #2549 - Oct 8^th, 2019 at 11:55pm

abu wrote:
Quote:

Where is your outrage in your government supporting the only Islamicist regime with no age of consent? You condemn a state with an age of consent at 15, but refuse to discuss the one with zero.

Then you carry on about blaming Islam while you support said-state being armed and backed as our man in the Middle East.

You invoke the image of little girls in nappies being raped, but it's just show. Your hysteria is fake. You'd support the Taliban if you were told to.

After all, you support the most backward Islamicist regime in the world.

There isn't a muslim alive who doesn't 100% hold up the qur'an as being unchangeable and infallible.

All their problems are caused by the qur'an.

It's no good picking and choosing between to equally evil entities in the pursuit of justice.

The answer is to find and destroy the cause.

Well it's very easy in this case, muhammad allah islam and the qur'an are the sole cause of all muzzie problems,

Until they are honest about the filth and depravity in their doctrine, nothing will change.

At the moment the millstone around the neck of civilization, is the duo of evil, the muslim / loony leftard syndicate.

Back to top

IP Logged