Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You can't deny that 100+ verses in the Islamic texts approve of Jihad against non-believers, can you?No, that list of the 30,000+ Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 is not Pam Geller - it's thereligionofpeace.com100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
Pam Geller? Dooooooooooooon't think so.
Pam Geller, Daniel Greenfield, Richard Spencer ---- who cares which particular snake oil salesman is conning the Gullibles this week.. I just use "Pam Geller" as a generic for the entire loony bin.
There haven't been any Islamic terrorist attacks. ....Sunni Man, if the list of 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 at thereligionofpeace.com is WRONG like you are implying, then please provide us with a MORE ACCURATE list of world-wide Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11. Thanks.
Edited: funny replies and/or ad hominem attacks, that lack a reasoned, articulate reply, are a sign that one might be bereft of cogent responses.Translation: You hurt my feelings, and now I need a safe space to hide in. ...Ad hominem attacks, that lack a reasoned, articulate reply, are a sign that one might be bereft of cogent responses...
Sunni Man, if the list of 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 at thereligionofpeace.com is WRONG like you are implying, then please provide us with a MORE ACCURATE list of world-wide Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11. Thanks.No difference in rabid hate.......just more lunacy. .....not Pam Geller - it's thereligionofpeace.com
And the moon is made of green cheese.There haven't been any Islamic terrorist attacks. ....Sunni Man, if the list of 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 at thereligionofpeace.com is WRONG like you are implying, then please provide us with a MORE ACCURATE list of world-wide Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11. Thanks.
You can't deny that 100+ verses in the Islamic texts approve of Jihad against non-believers, can you?No, that list of the 30,000+ Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 is not Pam Geller - it's thereligionofpeace.com100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
Pam Geller, Daniel Greenfield, Richard Spencer ---- who cares which particular snake oil salesman is conning the Gullibles this week.. I just use "Pam Geller" as a generic for the entire loony bin.
No, I am trying to educate morons like you.So you're going on record here as having no clue in the world about either Islam OR Liberalism.
I always figured you were a mental case.And the moon is made of green cheese.
And Donald Trump's hair is real.
And Hillary is a gentle, loving, kind, honest, person.
So the REAL number is probably "only" 25,000 or so.Sunni Man, if the list of 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 at thereligionofpeace.com is WRONG like you are implying, then please provide us with a MORE ACCURATE list of world-wide Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11. Thanks.No difference in rabid hate.......just more lunacy. .....not Pam Geller - it's thereligionofpeace.com
>> If you visit JihadWatch, AtlasShrugs or any of the too numerous to count anti-Muslim hate sites and blogs, you are likely to find on the sidebar a hyperlinked image claiming that “Islamic Terrorists have carried out more than _____ Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11.” The image was created by the anti-Islam hate site, The Religion of Peace (TROP), associated with Islamophobe Daniel Greenfield, aka “SultanKnish,” who you will recall earns a pretty penny from the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
(as of July 7,2012)
The clear visual intent of this “Islamic terrorism ticker” is to provoke an emotive fear and anxiety of a global, monolithic, totalitarian Islam (read: Muslims), that is waging terror everywhere through thousands upon thousands of unmitigated and random attacks. On TROP the “terror ticker” serves as ammunition for the site’s stated missionary proposition of portraying “Islam” as “the world’s worst religion.” It also aids in the attempt to tie terrorism to Islam.
Even a cursory glance at TROP’s list of so-called “Islamic terrorist attacks” reveals it to be nothing more than a deeply biased, propagandistic spin-job that conflates: real terrorist attacks, (semi)religious/culturally motivated crimes, attacks on military personnel and attacks by secular groups with no ideological basis in Islam — all in theaters of occupation, civil war and separatist conflict.
Sheila Musaji comments on this aspect of TROP’s list, writing,
This site lists acts committed around the world – some in wars, some having nothing to do with Islam, but to do with nationalist or political struggles, some in civil wars. No links are given. No sources for any of this just a list of supposed attacks carried out by “Islamic terrorists”.
Musaji’s complaint about their lack of links or citations to attacks holds true, however, one can generally glean where they grab their information. Some of it is likely from verifiable news sources while other sources are Right-Wing Christian/Zionist sites and news aggregators such as World Net Daily, BosNewsLife and Arutz Sheva.
A sampling of the entries on TROP’s “terrorism attack ticker” list is quite revealing. One of their most recent entries is an attack near Turbat, Pakistan. This is how TROP spins this nationalist/separatist attack:
According to most reports Balochistani nationalist separatists are suspected (via. CNN),
Attackers on motorcycles killed 18 Pakistani day laborers traveling through Pakistan’s Balochistan province on their way to Iran on Friday, according to Home Secretary Naseebullah Khan Bazai.
No one has claimed responsibility for the attacks, but Bazai said authorities suspect Baloch insurgents who have been fighting Pakistan’s government over economic, political and human rights issues.
According to Bazai, the day laborers from Punjab and Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa provinces were heading to Iran to seek work when four assailants on two motorcycles drew close and opened fire, killing 18 and injuring two.
The incident happened about 74 miles (120 kilometers) from Turbat, CNN affiliate GEO TV reported.
Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf’s office condemned the attack, saying in a statement that “the cowardly act will not weaken the resolve of the government and people to defeat the forces of evil.”
These facts are no hindrance for TROP’s propagandistic methodology, they likewise file this attack under “Islamic terrorist attack.” << ---- Loonwatch
Gullible's Travels. One born every minute.
Ad hominem attacks, that lack a reasoned, articulate reply, are a sign that one might be bereft of cogent responses.I always figured you were a mental case.And the moon is made of green cheese.
And Donald Trump's hair is real.
And Hillary is a gentle, loving, kind, honest, person.
Thanks for the conformation. ....
Excellent post.No, I am trying to educate morons like you.So you're going on record here as having no clue in the world about either Islam OR Liberalism.
When ISIS pushed west, into / towards Iraq and came across all those Christians - remember how they gave them the option to convert to Islam or be allowed to head out on their own - to flee elsewhere? And remember how ISIS embraced those who chose to convert from Christianity to Islam?
Yeah, Neither do I...because what ISIS really did to both groups were to behead and slaughter them in the sickest, most brutal ways. Convert or die...and even then those who converted were slaughtered for ever turning away from Islam.
Again, it's not rocket science, Po. Some Americans just can't wrap their brain around it, though, because they can not come to grips with the existence of something so evil.
In a similar way - no where close to as brutal - Obama and Democrats promised to give Americans a health care plan they would like, made all kinds of false promises, told them they could read it to give a thumbs up or down (to be able to choose / have a say), and when it came down to the truth - Liberals lied, would not let people read it, and rammed it into law against the majority opposition of the people. The same type of offer Islamic Extremists give - OUR WAY OR NO WAY. No freedom, no choice.
You can't deny that 100+ verses in the Islamic texts approve of Jihad against non-believers, can you? If not, then that's tacit admission that they do.There haven't been any Islamic terrorist attacks. ....Sunni Man, if the list of 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 at thereligionofpeace.com is WRONG like you are implying, then please provide us with a MORE ACCURATE list of world-wide Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11. Thanks.
No, I am trying to educate morons like you.So you're going on record here as having no clue in the world about either Islam OR Liberalism.
When ISIS pushed west, into / towards Iraq and came across all those Christians - remember how they gave them the option to convert to Islam or be allowed to head out on their own - to flee elsewhere? And remember how ISIS embraced those who chose to convert from Christianity to Islam?
Yeah, Neither do I...because what ISIS really did to both groups were to behead and slaughter them in the sickest, most brutal ways. Convert or die...and even then those who converted were slaughtered for ever turning away from Islam.
Again, it's not rocket science, Po. Some Americans just can't wrap their brain around it, though, because they can not come to grips with the existence of something so evil.
In a similar way - no where close to as brutal - Obama and Democrats promised to give Americans a health care plan they would like, made all kinds of false promises, told them they could read it to give a thumbs up or down (to be able to choose / have a say), and when it came down to the truth - Liberals lied, would not let people read it, and rammed it into law against the majority opposition of the people. The same type of offer Islamic Extremists give - OUR WAY OR NO WAY. No freedom, no choice.
You can't deny that 100+ verses in the Islamic texts approve of Jihad against non-believers, can you? If not, then that's tacit admission that they do.There haven't been any Islamic terrorist attacks. ....Sunni Man, if the list of 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 at thereligionofpeace.com is WRONG like you are implying, then please provide us with a MORE ACCURATE list of world-wide Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11. Thanks.
Those verse were given 1400+ years ago in response to various wars, battles, and social upheavals, taking place during that time period. ....You can't deny that 100+ verses in the Islamic texts approve of Jihad against non-believers, can you? If not, then that's tacit admission that they do.
Muslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
Sounds like propaganda right out of the KoranMuslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
You think that JIHAD should not be the default cause the we attribute to a Muslim terrorist - unless we know other facts that would lead us to think that his motivation was something other than Jihad/72-virgins for Allah?Sure, whatever. Any reason to go spend trillions on war in the ME.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
"We might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
You seriously don't think that Jihadists are not attacking in China, do you!?Muslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
OK, genius, you tell me why Jihad has them killing Americans and not Mexicans. Has them killing the French, and not the Vietnamese?Sounds like propaganda right out of the KoranMuslims aren't attacking us because we are non-believers. They are attacking us because we are the ruthless slaves of their arch-enemy, Israel, and we slaughter Muslims at Israel's bidding. If they were attacking us because 100 verses tell them kill non-believers, they would be attacking India, China, Finland, New Zealand, Bolivia, and Canada, as well.100+ verses in the Islamic texts exhort the faithful to wage Jihad against non-believers, and there have been over 30,000 Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11, so the Islamic texts might have to always be suspect #1 when it comes to trying to determine the motivation of a particular Muslim terrorist - until we get more info - if we ever get more info. The terrorist is dead, so we often won't know.
So "we might never know that Muslim terrorist's motivation" can't be used anymore.
Instead, our default position should be "until shown otherwise, we have to assume that this Muslim terrorist was simply following some of the 100+ verses in his religion relating to Jihad - including the enticing promise of 72 virgins in Paradise to those that wage jihad for Allah."
Question: should this be our default position, or not?
Me, I'm certainly starting to lean this way.
You?
