Dear Constance,

I'm not sure what you had said in your earlier post but as it has now been deleted it will have to be left up to the imagination I suppose. Without it your second post is rather an incomprehensible mess.

I'm going to assume it is addressed to me and I did find this comment striking;

“Big deal if Putin’s speech is a hoax.”

History has taught us that hoaxes are a very big deal;

“The Protocols of the Elders of Zion or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion is an antisemitic hoaxpurporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination. It was first published in Russia in 1903, translated into multiple languages, and disseminated internationally in the early part of the 20th century. Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies that were distributed throughout the US in the 1920s.”

"Adolf Hitler and the Nazis publicized the text as though it were a valid document, although it had already been exposed as fraudulent in 1921 by The Times. ... The historian Norman Cohn suggested that Hitler used the Protocols as his primary justification for initiating the Holocaust—his "warrant for genocide".”
Wikipedia

I wrote in an earlier post;

“So what choice does a person in your position have? Does one try and bluff it out, hurl slings and arrows so as to take the focus off one's transgressions or do they fess up and set things right? I suppose it depends on the ethics of the person, whether they hold truth to be a virtue or an inconvenience.”

Well the slings and arrow certainly have been in abundance but more concerning you really seem to put such little store in the virtue of truth.

I think it is best that you perhaps reflect on the following;

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things arehonest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; ifthere be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
Philippians 4:8

SteeleRedux,

So you're saying Winston Churchill who tried to warn Chamberlain about the Nazi's a hoax and his same warning about Islam, and who actually experienced The Sudan. I've listed a whole bunch of other historical people, including American presidents who have cited the same about Mohammadens. Go on, debate.

This post precedes my ….Saudi…post.

Oh baby, why are you so late dropping in on the scene. No comment on all my previous posts of historical facts and significant people citing their views on the terrifying ideology of Islam. I can’t hear you?

And sneaky. I’m not here to discuss Leonard. And ambiguity doesn’t register to you either. I suggest you start a new thread on him. I don’t even use facebook - why do you assume I use it? Seen it all before? And you still defend them. Only now you criticise Saudia Arabia only when America comes up? Funny, that.

And this is the first time I’ve ever seen a beheading which I was not searching for. OntheBeach posted a link and I just checked out the site and found it. I wondered why “Moderate” was there too, but that really is beside the point. Its interesting how you regressives detract all the time and never confront the actual atrocity. It’s irrelevant. I didn’t create the vid, and anyhow:

“As the Turkish president said. There is not moderate islam, there is just islam.”

You are desensitised – like seen one seen them all. How relativist is that and so typical of the intentions of Commie oppression. You really are a weird one. But that’s what happens to the desensitised, their brains become numb.

You’re more worried about Islam being tarnished than Islam itself and its damaging effects in the West?? Now tell me, you suddenly loathe Saudi Arabia, yet support Islam? Screwed thinking, hey.

It’s tricky, isn’t it. But then, Lefties and illiberals never seem to recognise complexities. Such is the binary, a simple universe of the liberal mind, never as nuanced and sophisticated as prideful liberals and Commies insist.

Correction with my other post.

Who loves you, baby?

There is a very simple explanation for the contradiction between Putin’s forthright speech as reported in the “hoax” and the one reported in Russia’s Hansard. That is, that Putin really did tell it is it is, that reports of what he said went around the traps a bit like the way Khrushchov’s famous 1956 speech condemning Stalin went around the traps, and ended up in Constance’s quote, whereas Russohansard diplomatically reported a sanitised, nuanced version to comply with its assessment of current geopolitics. Nuance is the copout refuge of dhimmis and other appeasers – truth dumbed down to take account of estimates of its external effect. How pervasive and worldwide is this Stockholm Syndrome, cringing before an evil cult. Along with dhimmitude goes the practice of misevaluating statements not by their truth content but by their expected external effect. Thus valuable and stark warnings get headed off by considerations of what effect they would have on cherished multiculturalism (aka cultural relativism aka openness to closedness aka 18C).

Dear Constance,

Perhaps the following link may clarify things for
you:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/08/danger-religious-fundamentalists-just-muslisms.html

It is beneficial to follow these five steps to give the
impression of being a superior debater.

1) Always argue in a logical manner.
Sound reasoning will conquer unreasonable generalisations
every time.

2) However you must not sound too dogmatic. Always
concede a minor point. If you don't listen to the
other person's opinion you will be deemed pig-headed.
A minor admission should not make you sound weak
but rather a little less obstinate.

3)An imperative point to remember is to always know
your topic.

4) Do not stoop to personal insults. That's an indication
that you have nothing of substance to add to the
discussion - and it means that you have lost the argument.

5) The final point is to as all times remain calm.
As stated in point no 4 above - never appear insulting or
abusive.

Good peaceful arguing can increase one's self-esteem and
public confidence and from your posts - that seems to be
a quality lacking in you. No-one likes, or supports an
abusive, illogical or weak debater.

Try again!

Foxy,

Here's an analysis on the negatives of self-esteem by English psychiatrist and physician, Theodore Dalrymple (the Orwell of our times) who has worked plenty of Muslims in prisons around Birmingham, UK.
http://incharacter.org/features/theodore-dalrymple-on-self-esteem-vs-self-respect/

"One has only to go into a prison, or at least a prison of the kind in which I used to work, to see the most revoltingly high self-esteem among a group of people (the young thugs) who had brought nothing but misery to those around them, largely because they conceived of themselves as so important that they could do no wrong. For them, their whim was law, which was precisely as it should be considering who they were in their own estimate."

Still waiting for a real debate from you.