[Patrick_Ross]

I'll also bring it to your attention you have just made a liar out of yourself:

Durandal Durandal:

$1:

-Islam is not the cause of all the world's conflicts - proven

Duh... I guess ; and I never made such a claim !

I suppose you never said this, did you?

Durandal Durandal:

FUNDEMENTALIST MUSLIMS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE CONFLICTS ON THE PLANET !

Don't bother trying to lie again to save face on that one: it's right at the top of the page for everyone to see.



Me? Need to "save face" from you?



You aren't fit to clean my intellectual jockstrap, young 'un.

[grainfedprairieboy]

I don't see the lie or misrepresentation. Islam itself is not responsible but Muslim fundies sure are. Where is the disconnect?

**Opps, there go six PMs by Iceowl now.**

[Durandal]

$1:

Who said anything about racist? Bigotry need not necessarily be racial.

"Robert Spencer-penned racist talking points"

[Durandal]

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

I'll also bring it to your attention you have just made a liar out of yourself:

Durandal Durandal:

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

-Islam is not the cause of all the world's conflicts

Duh... I guess ; and I never made such a claim !

I suppose you never said this, did you?

Durandal Durandal:

FUNDEMENTALIST MUSLIMS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE CONFLICTS ON THE PLANET ! [>>> LINK <<<]

You are so desperately searching for a revenge that you screwed-up again. Re-read the above sentences.

I said "the majority", not "all".

So who's the liar ?

[Scrappy]

Are all muslims radical, no. However in parts of the globe they are enforcing the radical form of Wahhabi Islam on democratic countries. This scares me, we cannot have one law for the Infidels and another set of laws for Muslims. Even when a democratic countries doesn't allow Sharia law certain Muslims ignore our laws and quietly or not so quietly follow Sharia Law. To allow this injustice to occur is setting "Women's rights" back into medieval times. Here's what is happing in England.

NEWS / SHOWBIZNOW MUSLIMS GET THEIR OWN LAWS IN BRITAIN




Monday April 30,2007
By Paul Jeeves Have your say(54)
MUSLIM radicals have established their own draconian court systems in Britain.

Controversial Sharia courts have been set up in major towns and cities to impose Islamic law and enable Muslims to shun the legitimate British legal system.Last night religious leaders and politicians expressed outrage that Sharia law is gaining an increasing foothold in our society.

Critics insisted that the Govern­ment is allowing a two-tier legal system to flourish in the name of political correctness and that the authority of UK justice is being undermined.

The Daily Express can reveal that one of the controversial courts has been set up in the home town of the 7/7 London bombings ringleader.


British society must be one of free speech, free personal choice, democratic freedom and fairness

Mohammed Siddique Khan was responsible for the Edgware Road Circle Line explosion which killed six people and injured 120. Our investigation has found that the Sharia court system has been set up in the heart of Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, and that it is a model for others across the country which are operating outside the British legal process.

The Dewsbury court is called the Sharee Council – another term for Sharia – and operates as a Muslim judiciary making decisions by which attendees must abide.

In many countries, hard-line interpretations of the Islamic law allow people to be stoned to death, beheaded or have their limbs amputated.

Non-Muslims are excluded from the secretive court which is registered as a charity to receive British tax benefits.
Although the court has no official legal standing, scales of justice adorn a sign outside a former pub building which has been converted by the Islamic Institute of Great Britain.Last night the Sharia courts were blasted by both Christian and Muslim groups for their non-democratic attempts to establish their legal system.

Mark Wallace, campaign man­ager of the Freedom Asso­ciation said: “British society must be one of free speech, free personal choice, democratic freedom and fairness.

“If individual Muslims wish to inform their decisions by the teachings of Sharia, that is fine, but they must do it within the structures of British law and they must understand that sharia will never be acceptable as the legal system of the UK.”

His views were echoed by the Muslim Council of Britain, whose spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said: “We believe one legal code should apply for all citizens of the UK. There is no place for multiple legal systems for people of different religious or ethnic backgrounds.”

Dewsbury councillor Imtiaz Ameen, a Muslim, said: “Some people advocate total Sharia law but you cannot have it being the case in any country that there is one law for one and one law for another.”

Critics say the Government has not done enough to stop radical Muslim groups establishing their brand of law.
Liberal thinkers in the Gov­ernment claim that the law enables full-face veil-wearing Muslim women who are afraid of British courts to gain justice the “traditional way”.

But one insider told the Daily Express that the Sharia court, which is run from the backroom of a Madrasa – an Islamic education centre – in Dewsbury is just one of “dozens” operating in Asian communities. And a leading Muslim commentator claimed similar courts exist in every major city across Britain.

The Madrasa – which is a former pub situated less than a mile from the one-time home of London bombing mastermind Khan – sits as a court every other weekend and hears up to 10 cases a day.

Four Muslim scholars, who have spent their life studying and preaching the Koran, sit in judgment on an array of cases alongside a Muslim solicitor whose role is to advise on the implications of their rulings in British law.

The operation is headed by prominent scholar Sheikh Yaqub Munshi. Accounts for the Dewsbury court’s parent company the Islamic Research Institute of Great Britain, show that it was registered in Dewsbury as a charity in 1996 with the ethos of promoting the advancement of Islamic religion and education in the United Kingdom.

Charitable status allows the organisation to claim tax relief and apply for government grants and trustee funding.

Between April 1999 and April 2004 its gross annual turnover rocketed from £2,500 to above £177,000. At the end of the last financial year it recorded total funds of £255,000 but it is not known if or how it charges for use of the service.

At the moment, the leaders insist they only deal with civil matters such as Muslim divorces, wedding dowries and asset sharing.

But the secretive Muslim-only nature of the dealings will provoke fears that radical Sharia law could be allowed
to spread across the Muslim population. The source said: “These courts take the law into their own hands and dish out punishment for bad behaviour.

“I have not heard of physical punishments being used but those in the wrong are often ordered to pay compensation. Many who have no respect for British law are the most stringent observers of Sharia law.”

Sheikh Yaqub admitted that in­troducing Sharia law into the UK has been his goal since moving to Britain from Paki­stan in the 1960s.

But he insisted its main aim is to help repressed women who are trapped in bad or violent marriages and who dare not use British law.

He said: “Ever since I arrived here in the 1960s there has been a case of women being forced to get married, others forced to get married, but unhappy afterwards. Until now there was no organisation which could Islamically solve their problems.”

Sharia is derived from the Arabic translation Sariah and outlines Islamic law according to the Koran. The term means “way” or “path” and gives the Islamic framework within which people must regulate their lives according to the Muslim faith.

After the Sharia court has ruled in judgment, solicitors process matters officially through UK courts on their clients’ behalf.

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, said: “Sharia courts now operate in most larger cities, with different sectarian and ethnic groups operating their own courts that cater to their specific needs according to their tradition.”

Philip Davies, the Tory MP for Shipley, said: “I am ab­solutely appalled and find the prospect of such courts totally terrifying. Places like this should be closed down or else everybody will want to establish their own courts.

“How many more places like this are there in the UK? Who knows where it could all end? It simply cannot be tolerated.”


[color=red] [/color]Will the Muslim apologist allow this to happen in Canada? Of course they will, they'd rather women and children suffer degragration and abuse based on a book that was written in in the year 834 than offend the so called "Moderate Muslims. If someone was truly moderate they wouldn't want Sharia law in Canada our laws would be sufficient.

[Brenda]

In the UK state and church are separated. There will never be a law based on religion.

Of course every institue can make it's own rules, and every one who is willing can join. But law? No.

[Patrick_Ross]

Durandal Durandal:

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

I'll also bring it to your attention you have just made a liar out of yourself:

Durandal Durandal:

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

-Islam is not the cause of all the world's conflicts

Duh... I guess ; and I never made such a claim !

I suppose you never said this, did you?

Durandal Durandal:

FUNDEMENTALIST MUSLIMS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE CONFLICTS ON THE PLANET ! [>>> LINK <<<]

You are so desperately searching for a revenge that you screwed-up again. Re-read the above sentences.

I said "the majority", not "all".

So who's the liar ?

Which, I will remind you, was also proven incorrect.

But you aren't smart enough to realize it.

Like I said: not fit to clean my intellectual jock strap, young 'un.

Furthermore, who needs revenge? I've already proven you wrong on the three basic arguing points of this thread. I know you aren't smart enough to realize this, but that means I win.

[Durandal]

Scrappy Scrappy:

In many countries, hard-line interpretations of the Islamic law allow people to be stoned to death, beheaded or have their limbs amputated.

And these countries include France, very soon Canada and USA.

In 2004, Ghofrane Haddaoui was stoned in Marseilles. In 2006, a high-school girl was stoned by her fellow classemates in her school's play-ground because she had not fallowed Ramadan - i.e. she had eaten during day-time (but she survived because she was able to flee) !

And they are also attacking Jewish women...

http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com ... an-in.html

And here are examples of what we can see on many walls in France (which the media won't show)...

< "Soon an Islamic state !"

< "Islam will be victorious"

Actually, there are OVER 750 SECTORS IN FRANCE where the French authorities don't even consider themselves sovereign and the police often does not even dare to penetrate.

http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/ ... 6490.shtml

Click this link for the maps of the 750+ small territories (called Zones Urbaines Sensibles) :

http://i.ville.gouv.fr/divbib/doc/chercherZUS.htm

More about Europe (especially France) from America Alone :

"There's Brussels, where Belgian police officers are advised not to be seen drinking coffee in public during Ramadan, and Malmö, where sweedish ambulance drivers will not go without police escort. It’s way too late to re-run the battle of Poitiers. When Martine Aubray, the mayor of Lille, daughter of former prime minister and EU bigwig Jacques Delors, and [then] likely presidential candidate in the post-Chirac era, held a meeting with an imam in Roubaix, the gentleman demanded that it take place on the edge of the neighbourhood – in recognition that his turf was Muslim territory which she was bound not to enter. Mme Aubry conceded the point, as more and more politicians will in the years ahead."

$1:

Non-Muslims are excluded from the secretive court which is registered as a charity to receive British tax benefits.

"Charity" ! Hear that P_R ??? It's rather... "Charia" !

$1:

The Muslim Council of Britain, whose spokesman Inayat Bunglawala said: “We believe one legal code should apply for all citizens of the UK. There is no place for multiple legal systems for people of different religious or ethnic backgrounds.”

^^^ In front of the camera. ^^^

>>> NOT in front of the camera (well... supposedly). <<<

$1:

But one insider told the Daily Express that the Sharia court, which is run from the backroom of a Madrasa – an Islamic education centre – in Dewsbury is just one of “dozens” operating in Asian communities. And a leading Muslim commentator claimed similar courts exist in every major city across Britain.

For those who read French and are interested about the "madrasas" I suggest that you read this PDF :

PRÉSENTATION AUX ÉCOLES CORANIQUES (MADRASAS)

$1:

Sheikh Yaqub admitted that in­troducing Sharia law into the UK has been his goal since moving to Britain from Paki­stan in the 1960s.

VLAN !



Here's an other quote from America Alone regarding the situation in the UK :

"After the carnage in Spain, Sheikh Omar Barki Mohammed told Lisbon's Publica magazine that a group of London Islamists were 'ready to lunch a big operation' on British soil. 'We don't make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents', he said clarifying the ground rules. 'Only between Muslims and unbelivers. And the life of an unbeliver has no value.' The cleric added he expected to see the banner of Islam flying in Downing Street. 'I beleive one day that this is going to happen. Because this is my country, I like living here', he said. 'If they believe in democracy, who are they afraid of ? Let Omar Barki benefit from democracy !'

You think that sounds ridiculous ? The Islamic crescent flying over 10 Downing Street ? You'd be surprised how quickly the question of what flag should fly over governmental buildings can become an issue. In 2005, Anne Owers, Her majesty's chief inspector of prisons, banned the flying of the English national flag in English prisons on the grounds that it shows the cross of St. George, which was used by the Crusaders and so is offensive to Muslims. The Drivers and Licensing Agency has also banned the English flag from its offices. So has Heathrow Airport."



But the resistance is organising itself.

$1:

But he insisted its main aim is to help repressed women who are trapped in bad or violent marriages and who dare not use British law.

Yeah riiiiiiiiiight.

Brenda Brenda:

In the UK state and church are separated. There will never be a law based on religion.

Of course every institue can make it's own rules, and every one who is willing can join. But law? No.

Just wait until the muzzis form the majority of the population (or even less), then we'll see what happens.

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

I will remind you, was also proven incorrect [...] I've already proven you wrong on the three basic arguing points of this thread

If anyone wants the proof of that, just click on the following link where you can see my 3 consecutives response to P_R (containing 99.99 % of the elements that he has decided not to respond to, simply because it would "waste his time" )... scroll down until you see a big finger pointing at you...

http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?nam ... c&start=45

$1:

But you aren't smart enough to realize it. [...] I know you aren't smart enough to realize this

Oh my dear P_R, I love you.

$1:

the victor [...] but that means I win.

OK, you win [go page 4 and scroll down to the finger to contemplate the glory of his "victory"], shut up now.

[Patrick_Ross]

:roll:

It's just all terribly funny, coming from someone who's every bit as intolerant and violent (by his own admission) as the "jihadists" he professes to hate so much.

Enjoy your own personal jihad, Durandal. I can't imagine how much it must suck to realize that you are, in fact, everything to claim to hate.

(Shut up now.)

[grainfedprairieboy]

Excellent go guys and very entertaining .

[Durandal]

grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:

Excellent go guys and very entertaining .

Thanks, and I could continue striking P_R with new stuff from my arsenal, but seems like P_R can't go on anymore, so I guess it will stop here...

[Patrick_Ross]

Thus, the ultmate irony of the argument. You'd really like to believe that I've "surrendered in the face of your superior facts".

Quite the contrary.

I've constantly pointed out, much to the satisfaction of any rational, intelligent human being that your facts are either: A.)Anything but, B.)Comparable to various phenomenae of Western Culture or C.)Hopelessly skewed in favor of a hateful monologue.

Whereas all you've done is piled more and more garbage on the monkey pile, making debating this issue with you a colossal waste of time.

Which brings me back to a number of points that makes arguing with you entirely pointless:

-Hopelessly bigoted individuals like yourself, thankfully, remain marginalized in Canadian society.
-People such as yourself hold no significant influence over Canada's political system, so your views really are of no great consequence to anyone.
-The exact people that you claim don't exist -- moderate, peaceful muslims -- occupy a much higher profile in the public consciousness than people such as yourself or your hateful pedagogue mentor, Robert Spencer.
-People like myself occupy a much higher profile in the public consciousness than aforementioned individuals like yourself or your aforementioned hateful pedagogue mentor, Robert Spencer.

So the entire matter becomes essentially simple: I can either waste hours of my time arguing over Islam with a vicious miscreant who is so blinded by hate that he'll never see the difference anyhow, or I can waste mere minutes just bringing it to his attention that he lost the entire debate anyway.

I'll opt for the latter, since you seem to take such insolent glee in wasting so much of the time of people more intelligent than yourself.

[Durandal]

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

You'd really like to believe that I've "surrendered in the face of your superior facts".

And this is exactly what you have done ; you can't beat them, so you try to do a little moral lesson and try to portray me as a nasty every-one-else hater without daring to argue on all the facts and info I provide.

$1:

making debating this issue with you a colossal waste of time.

Oh yeah, that's sooooo easy, "wast of time".

No P_R, you can't admit I destroyed you, so you say that you "don't want to waste your time".

$1:

The exact people that you claim don't exist -- moderate, peaceful muslims

Excuse me, I will quote myself here :

Durandal Durandal:

Man, I think you don't understand me : THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS.

My point is that the bad ones are much more numerous than we think and that the bad ones don't distort Islam.

Once again you say I said something that I naver said.

All the rest of your post is just emotionnal shit. That being said, I will bog you down even more. After the letter to the people of Oman and the deleting/deleted verses (both of which P_R has replied nothing to), here is the defenition of jihad made by the 4 main schools of law of Sunni Islam (regrouping 85/90 % of the world's Muslims). We can clearly see that jihad is all about waging war against the non-muzzis to spread Islam and is an obligation for all Muslim men.

Note : And as we see with Iran and Hizballah, it's not much not different with the 10/15 % of Shiites.

==========

École Malékite (Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani) :

Le djihad est une institution divine. Sa mise en œuvre par certains peut en dispenser d'autres. Nous [Malékites] affirmons qu'il est préférable de ne pas entamer les hostilités contre l'ennemi avant de l'avoir invité à adopter la religion islamique, excepté lorsque l'ennemi attaque le premier. Il a le choix entre se convertir à l'Islam et payer la taxe (jizya) ; sinon, la guerre sera déclarée contre lui.

École Hanbalite (Ibn Taymiyyah) :

Étant donné que la guerre licite est essentiellement le djihad et que son objectif est de faire en sorte que la religion devienne celle de Dieu uniquement et que la parole de Dieu soit ultime, de l'avis de tous les Musulmans, ceux qui y font obstacle doivent être combattus. Quant à ceux qui ne peuvent opposer de résistance, tels que les femmes, les enfants, les moines, les vieillards, les aveugles, les handicapés et autres, ils ne seront pas tués à moins qu'ils ne luttent par leur parole et leurs actes.

École Hanafite (Burhanuddin Ali) :

Il n'est pas licite de faire la guerre contre quiconque n'a jamais été appelé à adopter la foi sans préalablement les enjoindre à le faire, car c'est là l'instruction donnée par le prophète à ses commandants, leur ordonnant d'appeler les infidèles à adopter la foi et également pour que les gens sachent bien qu'ils sont attaqués au nom de la religion et non pour s'emparer de leurs biens, ou pour faire des esclaves de leurs enfants, car en constatant cela, il se pourrait qu'ils soient enclins à s'épargner les tourments de la guerre. Si les infidèles, en recevant l'appel de la foi, ne consentent ni à l'adopter, ni à payer la capitation, alors, il appartient aux Musulmans de demander l'aide de Dieu et de leur faire la guerre, car Dieu assiste ceux qui le servent et détruit leurs ennemis, les infidèles, et il est indispensable d'implorer son aide à chaque occasion; ce d'autant plus que le prophète nous ordonna de pratiquer de la sorte.

École Chaféite (Al-Mawardi) :

Les infidèles du domaine de la guerre (Dar al-Harb) sont de deux sortes : d'abord, il y a ceux que l'appel de l'Islam a atteints, mais qui l'ont rejeté et ont pris les armes. Le chef de l'armée à l'attitude de les combattre de la manière qu'il juge la plus fructueuse pour les Musulmans et la plus préjudiciable aux infidèles. Deuxièmement, il y a ceux que l'invitation à adopter l'Islam n'a pas encore atteints, quoique ceux-ci soient rares de nos jours puisque Allah a clairement manifesté l'appel de son messager. Il est interdit d'entamer une attaque avant d'expliquer l'invitation à l'Islam, d'informer sur les miracles du prophète et de rendre évidentes les preuves qui encourageront l'acceptation (des interlocuteurs). S'ils refusent toujours d'accepter après cela, la guerre est déclarée contre eux et ils sont traités comme ceux que l'appel a atteints.

==========

Note : in this text we talk about "Dar al-Harb", which designates the lands being conquered by fundementalist Muslims, here are more explanations. You can also note that the texts talf of "appel à l'Islam", which means asking infidels to convert and try to convince them to do so using the famous "miracles of the Koran" (there's even a tread on this on CKA !). A Muslim cannot -- according to his religion -- attack the unbelivers if they haven't asked us to adopt Islam.

So I demonstrated that the 4 most important branches of Sunni Islam straightforwardly order Muslims to attack the infidels to destroy all other faiths, and what will P_R say ? He will say that I am "spreading hate" and that I am "intolerant and violent". If exposing a cult that orders the destruction of my religion and of my country makes me "intolerant and violent", then I guess I am.

Also of interest is this video of a guy that P_R himself labeled as an expert :

Walid Shoebat (Ex-Islamist) Speaks against Islam

Oh, and more about Saudi Arabia...

Our Friends the Saudis

"The Saudi religious police (the mutaween) descended on a group of Canadian women at an education exhibition in Jeddah and closed their booth because it was staffed by women."

Ah... beautiful secularity in the magnificient kingdom of SA.

[Patrick_Ross]

Durandal Durandal:

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

You'd really like to believe that I've "surrendered in the face of your superior facts".

And this is exactly what you have done ; you can't beat them, so you try to do a little moral lesson and try to portray me as a nasty every-one-else hater without daring to argue on all the facts and info I provide.

You'd really like to believe that, I'm sure.

The problem is that all your sources are garbage, pure garbage, and no amount of "nuh-uh!" will change that.

$1:

$1:

making debating this issue with you a colossal waste of time.

Oh yeah, that's sooooo easy, "wast of time".

No P_R, you can't admit I destroyed you, so you say that you "don't want to waste your time".

Not only did I disprove pretty much every point you tried to raise, but I even turned your beloved Daniel Pipes against you (or did I turn you against Daniel Pipes? Maybe you just had no idea who you were talking about when you cited him as "one of the world's only Islam experts").

$1:

$1:

The exact people that you claim don't exist -- moderate, peaceful muslims

Excuse me, I will quote myself here :

Durandal Durandal:

Man, I think you don't understand me : THERE ARE MILLIONS OF GOOD MUSLIMS.

My point is that the bad ones are much more numerous than we think and that the bad ones don't distort Islam.

No, the bad ones do distort Islam, just as much as Christian fundamentalist terrorists distort the Bible.

$1:

Once again you say I said something that I naver said.

All the rest of your post is just emotionnal shit. That being said, I will bog you down even more.

And I will ignore even more of your garbage.

See how easy that was?

[Durandal]

Patrick_Ross Patrick_Ross:

You'd really like to believe that, I'm sure.

I do beleive that.

$1:

The problem is that all your sources are garbage, pure garbage.

Ho, I also think all of your (few) sources are pure garbage, but I also have destroyed all of them.

You can say my sources are "garbage", but you need to argue to back-up your claims (ie : prouve that my sources are "garbage").

You still need to argue against :

>>> The letter to the people of Oman that prooves Muhammad went to war to convert the infidels.

>>> The deleting/deleted verses that makes irrelevant ALL the tolerant verses in the Koran.

>>> The defenition of jihad given by the 4 main schools of law of Sunni Islam that straightforwardly order holy war against the unbelivers/"kuffars".

>>> The defenition of jihad made by the top of Shia Islam, Ayatollah Khomeini, which clearly states that "Islam wants to conquer the whole world".

Like we say in French, t'as du pain sur la planche !

$1:

Not only did I disprove pretty much every point you tried to raise

For everyone who is following this topic, I invite you, once again, to go back to page 4 and scroll down until you see a big finger pointing at you. The "disprouving" of all the facts I raised stopped there...

http://www.canadaka.net/modules.php?nam ... c&start=45

$1:

I even turned your beloved Daniel Pipes against you

You demonstrated that Pipes and me don't agree 100 % of the time, true.

Pipes point was the fact that the Koran contains both tolerant and intolerant passages. I have demonstrated that I was right on that one with the deleting/deleted verses... to which your lack of knowledge on the matter only allows you to respond "it's garbage" .

But it goes furter that that, because your mistake of saying Pipes agrees you (contrary to me) allowed me to turn Pipes against YOU, don't remember ?

P_R also used Tariq Ramadan as a sourse to "disprouve" my facts [again, back to page 4/pointing finger to see how I debunked Tariq], but after that I turned Ramadan against P_R when he said that one of his claims was "LAUGHABLE AT BEST".

Look...

Durandal said in page 4 Durandal said in page 4:

P_R, even Daniel Pipes agrees with ME that Tariq Ramadan lies :

http://ajm.ch/wordpress/?p=534

Ouch, that's gonna hurt you.

But hey, that's not the end, I'm having too much fun here.

Here's a debate that took place between the Islam-is-a-religion-of-peace mayor of London (Ken Livingstone) and Daniel Pipes. Daniel Pipes sooooo blasted the multiculti-freak (sounds like P_R, doesn't it ?) mayor that the BBC finally decided not to show the debate, but somebody else did.

http://ajm.ch/wordpress/?p=466

http://ajm.ch/wordpress/?p=482

Even worst, P_R said that Walid Shoebat is an expert, so I have profitted of the occasion to prouve that Shoebat DISAGREES with P_R and AGREES with me and Robert Spencer...

Durandal Durandal:

TRAILER - ISLAM : WHAT THE WEST REALLY NEEDS TO KNOW

FULL MOVIE (FRENCH SUBTITLES)

ISLAM - DIFFERENT BEHAVIOR FOR DIFFERENT SITUATIONS

ISLAMIC CONSISTANCY

And :

Durandal Durandal:

Also of interest is this video of a guy that P_R himself labeled as an expert :

Walid Shoebat (Ex-Islamist) Speaks against Islam

And what has P_R responded to Shoebat, the ex-islamist terrorist ??? "All your sources are garbage, pure garbage, and no amount of 'nuh-uh!' will change that."

He just made my day !

Not bad, P_R (partially) turned ONE "expert" against me, then I prouved this expert wrong, then I turned THREE "experts" against him, and he is COMPLETELY unable to prouve ANY of these experts wrong. Heck, I'm an expert myself !

$1:

And I will ignore even more of your garbage.

Keep ignoring, your just helping me out.

$1:

See how easy that was?

Well of course, when the only thing you are able to do is say "I ignore you because your sources are garbage", it's not very hard to respond to my professionnal agrumentation by "all your sources are garbage".