Loudmouth,

"A bit selective there: Jardine asked, as an 'if-then'-type question:

"Do you think it's okay to kill, enslave or rape non-Muslims in accordance with the authority of Mohammed and the Koran, or not?"

"The second part depends on a positive answer to the first part: 'if A, then B or not B ?' You can't wriggle out of that by simply distorting what Jardine asked."

Come off it...that's JKJ's standard modus operandi.

For instance, if we're discussing the role of govt, he will then ask the person he's debating why they support the govt shooting people, etc.

After which he will go on to abuse them fulsomely.

It's a disingenuous style of debate, and one he pulls with monotonous regularity on this site.

As we have to come expect from those on the left. Poirot opens a second front in an endeavor to take the pressure off her Islamic, fellow travelers.

Jardine,

I answered your question. You didn’t get it. Here are the details:

Your question1: “Do you think it's okay to kill, enslave or rape non-Muslims in accordance with the authority of Mohammed and the Koran, or not?”- your post of the 25th.

The question is based on the assumption that Muhammad and Quran authorise the ‘crimes’ you list.

The assumption that your question rests on is a FALSEHOOD OF MONUMENTAL PROPORTIONS.

No and I repeat NO credible source, worth the name will give you an information like that. Barring, of course the internet trash that a host of hate-sites regurgitate these days, which obviously is YOUR SOURCE. These sites misinterpret history and carry false translations of Quranic verses.

Countless people in the west have accessed the credible sources and were able to lit their lives with light of Quran. One example: Timothy Winter (now Abdal Hakim Murad) researcher, writer, academic who teaches at Cambridge University would a good person for you to examine. The internet, including Utube, carries series of his writings and lectures. See how Quran lifted the intellect of this man to where it is today.

Some upright minds, irrespective of their religious affiliations, find nothing but respect for Muhammad and Quran when they see them for who and what they really are. An example: Karen Armstrong, an acclaimed authority on religious history and a prolific writer. Her books are available anywhere. Read her books “Muhammad” and “Islam”, for starters, and find for yourself how far-removed from reality are your assumptions.

Some choose to change their unawareness from Islam into a total ignorance of facts through a one-eyed focus on the hat-sites of the internet. This is what I called your “extra-ordinary manifestation of trust” in your “complete ignorance”- my post of the 25th.

Continued …

Continued …

Then your question2 “do you renounce and condemn Mohammed and the Koran” is the next step of the ladder you place on the shaky base of your assumed FALSEHOOD OF MONUMENTAL PROPORTIONS.

To this I responded “Then demanding a response is another extra-ordinary manifestation of trust in others’ inability to see who this person is: More amazing!”

To explain it further, a dialogue is useful only as long as there is a meaningful exchange of information and views. When I identify in someone a sickening tendency to demonise Islam and Muslims (as also manifested by your friend SPQR), any hope of a meaningful dialogue fades away for me. No amount of reasoning can remove bias of some type of people, no matter how forceful it is. When encountered with such people, I prefer silence over an otherwise imminent harsh exchange.

This is my first message to you and my last one as well, seeing what you have written so far.

Please know that my time is too precious to be wasted unless there is hope for a meaningful dialogue.

Joe,

The above must answer your new query as well (26th). My response has a different angle than that of an otherwise convincing observation – (Poirot 26th)

You have ignored the questions I have asked in my messages of the 24th and 25th.

Is it that in your style of exchange you can ask questions and I cannot?

Hi Poirot,

Ah, the 'Left' rides to the rescue of the extreme-Right !

Jardine asked a perfectly legitimate question, in a perfectly legitimate way:

"Do you think it's okay to kill, enslave or rape non-Muslims in accordance with the authority of Mohammed and the Koran, or not?"

A positive answer would not have needed the second question, but a negative answer would have inevitably led to the second question:

"If not, do you renounce and condemn Mohammed and the Koran, and if you don't, why not, apart from fearing for your life from the violence of your co-religionists if you were to do so?"

a complex of questions which, in order to avoid answering, NC/McAdam corrupted into:

" ..... “do you renounce and condemn Mohammed and the Koran, and if you don't, why not”

Rather a childish 'trick'. And which you parrot by attacking Jardine. Goooood girl !

And then you go on to abuse Jardine fulsomely. Any chance of avoiding that and sticking to topic ?

Just trying to help :)

Welcome back.

Joe

Loudmouth,

"And then you go on to abuse Jardine fulsomely...."

My heart bleeds...pull the other one...JKJ is one of the most abusive posters on this forum.

"....Any chance of avoiding that and sticking to topic ?"

Lol!....love it.

Here's what your wrote on a thread recently....totally off topic.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16951&page=0#298088

Topic was: "Exaggerating the terror genie: reflections on a fake sheik"
(While the Sydney holdup says absolutely nothing about a terror 'wave', it is being read as part of a current, with Australia being caught in it.)

"Thanks Jay,

I've got to use that: " ....'to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake."

Brilliant ! I've been typing up thousands of pages of old documents, Protector's letters, missionary's journal, reports, etc., in relation to Aboriginal policy in South Australia - what I found was that:

* there was only one full-time employee of the 'Aborigines Department' (in fact, from 1837 right through to the 1930s) - i.e. the Protector;

* that there was no 'herding of people onto Missions';

* that [big surprise for me!] there was no driving of people from their lands, quite the contrary, and

* that there was no removal of countless thousands of children from families.

Next time I'm in a discussion with a defender of all those myths, I'll try to be helpful and pass that one on :)

' .... 'to let fact checking define the narrative would be a huge mistake.' Story trumps facts. Ideology trumps reality. Beauty !

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Monday, 22 December 2014 8:13:42 AM"

.........

Hypocrite