Good try, my dear wounded swan,

Abuse is not 'on-topic'. It's not all about you.

But I did like that free quote, about the post-modern, Cultural Studies 100 principle, of teaching that letting

" ....'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 !

Thanks again.

Joe

Good stuff Joe --well put.

Jardine and Joe
"probably there are some who sympathise with the Taliban"

We are discussing specifics. You contested the statement that Pakistanis are rising up as a nation against terrorism.
I provided you specifics and asked you specific evidence of your claim and warned you not to waste every body's time by your conjecture. And what I get is " probably"
You can not even see that I am dealing with verifiable information that I provide and you are stuck in the guesswork.
Do you really feel that "probably" is the valid substitute of specific information and evidence?

Then you ask me
"Do you think we're complete idiots out here?"
My answer is I don't know, but certainly you are acting like ones, as you can not stick to the point and hasten to dilute or confuse the discussion by introducing distractions.

Please tell me clearly where do you stand on "Pakistan rising as a nation against terrorism?"

Once, this is out of the way, we will handle your ridiculous remarks about the religion too.
By now, you have amply demonstrated that you are armed with half knowledge of Islam, and like any other ignorant person are super sure of your position, unaware that your propagadist disinformation would not stand any serious scrutiny of the subject when we reach there; after we clear the table of the point under discussion.

McAdam

1. How is the question, whether Pakistanis are rising up against terrorism as a nation or state, logically relevant to the question whether Muslims, by being Muslim, believe in the authority of Mohammed and the Koran as to its being okay to kill, enslave or rape unbelievers?

The former proposition, about Pakistan, does not depend on the latter, about Islam. It's irrelevant.

As to the former, all you're doing is showing your belief that if the state does something, it means that the nation as a whole is doing it.

Please tell me clearly where do you stand on "Pakistan rising as a nation against terrorism?"

Depends what you mean by "Pakistan rising as a nation". I've explained what I mean by nation and state. You haven't.

But tell me this: what difference does it make? If Pakistanis as a nation are rising up against terrorism, as evidenced by the Pakistani state's operation against the Taliban, or if they're not ... so what? What's that supposed to prove?

How is this question logically prior to the question whether the Muslim religion preaches violence against unbelievers?

2. As to whether Mohammed and the Koran do say it's okay to kill, enslave, or rape unbelievers, it seems that all you have is bald denial. NC's tactic of saying that the only sources saying so are hate-sites, is like the argument that Muslims who commit terrorist acts are not true Muslims.

Someone is not instrinsically hating or demonising Muslims by pointing out that Islam preaches violence against unbelievers. You've got it back-the-front.

Let's get this straight. Are you saying that no part of the Koran preaches or authorises the killing, enslaving or raping of unbelievers?

The most damaging periods of human history have been when some portion of humanity believe they have found the perfect creed, that cannot be bettered, or the perfect leader who cannot be challenged. NC and co are the just the latest in a long line of we-have-the-perfect-creed peddlers.

However well motivated such causes start out, they almost invariable end in some form of censorship, suppression and terror. And even in the above discussions --conducted in a society where free speech is permitted --you can begin to detect hints of what would happen if NC & co had the numbers.

McAdam/NC,

Thank you for writing, in answer to Jardine's quite legitimate 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?”- 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." [I'm certainly glad to hear that].

So your answer to his question, after some to-ing-and-froing, is "NO". Is that so ?

There is nothing in the Koran that justifies the unprovoked killing or enslavement of non-Muslims, or presumably the beheading of children ? Is that what you are saying ?

If so, then are you also saying that Islamic State are not acting in accordance with any of the teachings of the Koran ?

Are you saying there is nothing in the Koran which justifies what Islamic State is doing ? Or Boko Haram ? Or al Qa'ida ?

Are you saying that the Koran teaches its adherents to prefer peace to war, never to provoke or aggress against a peaceful group even if they are not Muslim ? And certainly not to rape and enslave their women [Hello, Poirot, where are you ?] or behead their children ?

Given that questions are not, in themselves, criticisms, or 'hate speech', I look forward to a clear "Yes" or "No".

Joe