While Phillips's article did involve a lot of bleating about how supposedly untrustworthy even apparently moderate Muslims like Ramadan are, I thought its major point was her call for him to be prevented from speaking in Australia and Britain, as he was in the USA.

I meant to thank TRTL for the link to that disturbing and interesting article. Apparently it's the subject of tonight's 'Four Corners' - a 'must see' for those who like to spread fear and loathing of Muslims in Australia, I reckon.

"OLO makes it very easy, dickie. You just locate the original comment from which the quote was taken, and underneath it is a row of icons. If you click on the one furthest to the right, this will copy the comment's URL to your clipboard. If you then paste this along with the "quote", then everybody will be able to verify the quote, its immediate context and the thread in which it was posted." CJ Morgan

What arrogance CJ but not surprising when one reads of all the tantrums you throw as you goose-step through this forum trampling the many you contemptuously accuse as "xenophobes."

Rest assured, CJ, I do not dance to your arrogant tunes. I am not your whipping boy. Those quotes of yours which I placed here earlier are for all to see if they have the time to peruse your 1471 rants - gawd....that's over 81 per month!

You continue to malevolently attack anyone who raises issues denouncing specific Islamic cultures that are harsh and cruel. These posters are in your opinion, "Islamophobic clowns."

Ramadam is regarded as an extremist who has been banned from entering the US but you attack the author by calling her "a demonstrated Islamophobic hack." Therefore, you are defending "radical Islam" since you are unable to support your accusations with anything substantial.

Then you hypocritically crow that everyone is entitled to "Freedom of Speech."

Of course, in your "expert" opinion, speech is only free if it complies with the bleeding heart vomit you sanctimonously throw up on OLO!

"1471 rants .... over 81 per month!"

How productive is that, CJMorgan?

Especially someone who, has presented little or no new idea over so long, never fails to contemptuously accuse others "xenophobes", and behaves like a stooge at the best of time.

DICKIE... *WOW* :) I'm almost feeling sorry for poor CJ after that pounding.

I think I'm in love (err ur a girl right? if not I'm biting my keyboard:) tease.

Our next op..is at ISSNA in Coburg mate.

A couple of quotes from their web page... this is .. er.. hmm.. words fail me:

<<There are many historical cases where those who mocked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) were destroyed and finished off.>>

(Comment: yes..they were.. by HIM)

another:

Monthly BarbeQue

"The event will be segregated and we request that everyone please dress modestly."

COMMENT sounds like a great way to meet a wife....not.

They have on their web site a link to THIS:

http://www.iisna.com/articles/?sid=dawah&id=19

Mohammad in the Bible, by Ahmad Deedat.

The number of errors and assumptions in that effort boggle the mind.
But this is on public display in a web site that many naive people may visit. Does it surprise folks that a 'Christian' in a forum like this, give a different view of such doublespeak?

BOAZ, you are my hero. I love how you quote so many unrelated events to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there is an enormous Islamist conspiracy ready to swamp our world with a form of religion even more dangerous than yours.

Whilst CJ sometimes puts things across differently than I would, all his points are valid, and the criticism's I've seen here can be dissected as fallacies.

The 1471 comment appears to merely be the number of comments, with the word 'rant' attached. Therefore, this criticism can be directed at anyone simply by going to their profile and pasting the number of comments.

By that logic, boaz comes under much heavier fire. It's not valid.

Dickie, CJ was asking you to go through those comments and provide some backing to your claims that he defends radical Islam.

The only instance where you rebut this, is where you say "malevolently attack anyone who raises issues denouncing specific Islamic cultures that are harsh and cruel."

There's a fair amount of emotive language there, but the keyword - specific - is important. It hints at drawing a number of links together, which appear to me to be purely causal.

Firstly, you'd have to prove that the comments he criticised are coming from people who have an agenda of simply critiquing radical Islam.

Otherwise, those who are criticising Islam in general often hide behind a veil of only criticising radical cultures, but still indicating that fringe movements are representative of the overall religion.

The most common fallacy I've seen employed in debates anywhere in OLO, is exaggeration. Pick the ugliest parts of the ideology in your sights, and attempt to draw the rest of it in there too.

Capitalists attack Stalin, not socialism, but pretend they're the same.
Christians attack Islamic extremists, not Islam, but pretend they're the same.
Same goes for criticism of Christianity. The crusades and Fred Nile are often trotted out.

In order to prove that CJ is defending radical Islam, you need to prove his criticism isn't directed at those employing this fallacy.

You've not done that. Instead, judging by the contemptuous language, you're attempting to monopolise some high ground, but seeing as your insults are looking as ugly as the others I've seen here I don't see how you can do that, especially given the lack of backing.