Arjay:

You would interested in this: “The “meaning” of 911 – it’s not what you think”: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/09/09/the-meaning-of-911/

You may also be interested in this: “Bin Laden is Dead; Long Live “Bin Laden” Who’s keeping the terror myth alive?” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26164.htm

<<Assessing the evidence, Angelo M. Codevilla, a former U.S. intelligence officer who studied Soviet disinformation techniques during the Cold War and a professor of international relations at Boston University, wryly concluded that “Elvis Presley is more alive today than Osama bin Laden.”>>

In the end there was a Qu'ran burning at ground zero, it'll be interesting to see who this guy turns out to be, I'm guessing a stooge of some sort, either ADL or one of those crazy 700 club Fundies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRcUdruhgyw&feature=player_embedded&skipcontrinter=1

Mac wrote:

<<(1)There is no evidence that the personal god of the Quran even exists,it's simply the ramblings of desert nomads,so what's the point of reading it? Your sacred book means nothing to this infidel.>>

Posted by mac, Saturday, 11 September 2010 9:27:55 AM”

WHAT DOES MAC AND PASTOR JONES HAVE IN COMMON?

JONES:
“Pastor Jones, dressed in a dark suit, said at a press conference that he had never read the book he intended to burn. “I have never read the Koran,” he said. His opposition to the book, he said, was rooted in his belief that it doesn't contain the truths of the Bible. ” (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/terry-joness-koran-fire-protest-plan-burns-out/story-e6frg6so-1225918479142)

MAC:

Mac’s opposition to the book is rooted in his belief that “no evidence that the personal god of the Quran even exists, it's simply the ramblings of desert nomads”.

ANSWER: BOTH HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK and base their conclusions on their beliefs. How can you say the Qur'aan is the "ramblings of nomads" when you haven't read a word.

Yet another fundamentalist, eh David F

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO HAVE READ THE BOOK
1) a number convert once they realise how at variance with the truth are opinions such as those of Mac and Jones :"Koran burning on hold for 9/11 as US sees boom in Islam conversion " http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Go_WnA8B2HE&feature=player_embedded

2) Others have the decency to uphold the truth in the faces of the lies by leading public figures:

An editorial in the Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21009543), refers to "Got Medieval", the fascinating blog of Middle-Ages buff Carl Pyrdum.

Carl got stuck into Newt Gingrich remarks about the NYC mosque project:
http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html

Given your aversion to reading anything good about Islam, and in light of your remarks about anti-semiticism, i thought i'd quote a few paragraphs for you:

CONT...

CONT..

Carl Pyrdum (http://gotmedieval.blogspot.com/2010/08/professor-newts-distorted-history.html):
<<Muslim historians of the late tenth century tell that Abd-ar-Ramman bought the church from the Christian congregation after sharing it with them for fifty years "following the example of Abu Ubayda and Khalid, according to the judgement of Caliph Umar in partitioning Christian churches like that of Damascus and other [cities] that were taken of peaceful accord".The Christians, we're told, took their money and relocated their church to the outskirts of Cordoba. Now obviously, these are Muslim historians writing two-to-three-hundred years after the events they describe, so we must always take their accounts with a grain of salt (as we would with any historian's work, Muslim or not) and consider the political motivations responsible for their histories.

These tenth-century historians were writing to please the ears of the Cordoban caliphs, Abd-ar-Ramman III and his successors, in the wake of yet another victory of Muslim over Muslim. Abd-ar-Ramman III, after all, is the one who declared Cordoba to be an independent caliphate, not just an Umayyad emirate. In rewriting the history of the Mosque of Cordoba, these historians were writing imperial justifications for their patron, explaining why Cordoba deserved to be the capital of its own caliphate, held up as the equal to Damascus, site of the Great Mosque of the Umayyads, and even Mecca, the holiest of cities, which was still under Abbasid control.

This is the important fact that Newt hopes those who read his polemic will be ignorant of: for a ruler to be legitimate in Muslim eyes in the tenth century, during the time when the Great Mosque was being expanded into its present-day dimensions, it was important to emphasize the peaceful succession of Islam from the other religions in the area. A caliph was expected to have arrived at an accord with the Christians and Jews over which he ruled. Far from "symboliz[ing] their victory" the Mosque was held up by Muslim historians a symbol of peaceful coexistence with the Christians--however messier the actual relations of Christians and Muslims were at the time.>>

Mac, i'd love to ask you to quote passages fronm the Qur'aan that you would regard as "ramblings of desert nomads" but there is not much point since you haven't read the book!

LOL mac

If you read the koran you will see that Muhammad was an earlier incarnation of Monty Python. I mean only Monty Python could make this stuff up.

Muslims believe the koran was dictated verbatim to Muhammad from Allah via an angel called Gibril (Gabriel). Allah is supped to be the creator of the universe.

Only this creator of the universe gets the basic facts of mammalian reproduction wrong. He also flunks geology 101. In fact he's all over the place.

Eg:

[18.74] So they went on until, when they met a boy, he slew him. (Musa)(Moses) said: Have you slain an innocent person otherwise than for manslaughter? Certainly you have done an evil thing.

[...]
[18.80] And as for the boy, his parents were believers and we feared lest he should make disobedience and ingratitude to come upon them:
[18.81] So we desired that their Lord might give them in his place one better than him in purity and nearer to having compassion.

Sort of preemptive euthanasia!

Muhammad had a thing about geckos as recorded in certain ahadith.

See Bukhari:

Book 026, Number 5562:

'Amir b. Sa'd reported on the authority of his father that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) commanded the killing of geckos, and he called them little noxious creatures.

Book 026, Number 5565:

This hadith has been reported on the authority of Abu Huraira through another chain of transmitters (and the words are): - He who killed a gecko with the first stroke for him are ordained one hundred virtues, and with the second one less than that and with the third one less than that.

Book 026, Number 5566:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying (that he who kills a gecko) with the first stroke there are seventy rewards for him.

Question: What is the exchange rate between "rewards" and "virgins". How many reward points do you need to get one virgin?