Quote:


There is a very slight difference when Western novelists glorify suicide attacks.
They attack the perpetrators of the evil, the bad guys, the final attack to end the wrongdoings.

Terrorists attack only the innocent, the soft target, the poor people who have probably had no input into the war.
This is simply cowardice and will always be seen as nothing but cowardice.
Hell, they even blow up their own people, how sick is that.

I realize that Muzzos do not see non Muzzos as innocent, and children are as good a target as adults, but seriously though how can anyone defend suicide attacks, ever?

Imagine if Western society decided that it would play the same way, it would only take a few nukes to eliminate the problem areas, then gradual elimination of all Muzzos could be systematically undertaken.
Mohamed (the pedophile, sociopath) has a lot to answer for.

Valkie wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 8:34am:


You're making baseless assumptions about the respondents - based on ignorant stereotypes

The question, as presented in the article, should be a no-brainer: 'do you have sympathy with suicide bombing to fight injustice' (or words to that effect). Any sane human being would answer yes to that. Obviously the reason why 96% of respondents said 'no' is because there are well-known connotations with the phrase "suicide bombing", which people don't want to be associated with. But if I was asked, I would answer yes without hesitation - and definitely not because I am thinking about slaughtering kids and non-muslims.

what about you moses? Would you have sympathy with someone blowing themselves up with the aim of stopping a bunch of muslims about to rape and murder some nice christian kids?

Gando, what are your thoughts on the likes of maajid nawaz and ayaan hirsi ali?

Maajid has an interesting history - especially regarding how he became a 'born-again' progressive, and what motivated him:

https://newrepublic.com/article/128436/maajid-nawaz-really-believe

worth reading - especially for those so convinced Maajid is the messiah for the Islam reform movement.

As for Ayaan Hirsi - poor girl, she's quite confused. On the one hand she agrees with the nuckleheads that the only "true" Islam is the rape and pillage version. But then in the same breath she argues that there's no reason muslims can't transform Islam into the same kumbaya love and peace religion christianity became.

So in her latest book she's set out the 3 parts of the muslim world: the so called "Mecca muslims" (lovin' and peace'n), the ''Medina muslims" (head-hackers) - and the vast majority who are in between, waiting to be swayed by either group. She argues passionately how the Meccan muslims must take control and transform the religion away from the head-hackers. And yet, she simply can't resist pointing out that despite all her "its all up to the muslims to set the right narrative" talk - its still the head-hackers who have it right.

Quote:


If you are going that deep into it Gandalf, perhaps you should find out what the question actually asked.

freediver wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 4:32pm:


Indeed - I was just going by what the breitbart article said - who I'm guessing  would have taken the opportunity to highlight as many incriminating facts as they could.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 12^th, 2016 at 4:05pm:


Thanks for that, I'll read about Maajid later. I've never thought of him as the messiah, but after he pimped himself around last year when his book with Harris was released, I suspected he was self serving. I also tend to take with a grain of salt people that bounce from one end of the court to the other but I'll take what he says at face value.

I do however feel what he says is a good conversation opener, hoping more from others will follow.

As for Ayaan Hirsi, I haven't read her yet, on my list but what I find pretty worrying is the reaction she elitists from those you call 'knuckle heads'. (I'd use a harsher term)