Vehicles - the new Muslim weapon of choice?

You want me to condemn inanimate objects (which I won't do because I'm not schizophrenic or an animist) or to condemn people in the ancient past using today's standards, which I won't do because unlike you, I'm actually a Humanist.

And now you won't even attempt to defend your own claims that you used to slander a hundred million people, like a bigoted fundamentalist would.

- - - Updated - - -

You still are not supporting your claim. Show that 100 million Muslims sympathize with ISIS.

 

So by that response we'll take it that you CAN'T "condemn the 20% of British Muslims who sympathized with the 7/7 bombers". Some day you'll love peace enough to condemn the 20% of British Muslims who sympathized with the 7/7 bombers. Peace is a good thing, Questerr.

 

Incredible. I'm sure that most people would be SHOCKED to hear than an intelligent person (who claims to not be bigoted, even!) can't condemn a guy, and his followers, who said "I have been made victorious through terror". It's obvious why we are in the longest war in US history, with no end in sight - seemingly reasonable people can't condemn Muslims for thinking a terrorist is the #1 role model of all time.

 

Great, now all you have to do is demonstrate that all Muslims who sympathized with the 7/7 bombers also sympathize with ISIS.

Our are you abandoning your bigoted claim in favor of evidence, like a real secular humanist would?

- - - Updated - - -

It was the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing 7th century! EVERYONE during that time period was immoral by modern standards. That's why is makes no (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) sense to judge them by modern standards.

 

If 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers, and 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified, and Britain is not even the most radical Islamic country, then it's a real real easy conclusion to say that only 6% (not 20 or 25% per the survey), which would be 100 million Muslims.

Can you condemn the Muslims who approve of the 100 or so verses in the Qur'an that call for warfare against unbelievers, Qeusterr? Can you? I do.

- - - Updated - - -

So we can agree that people in the 7th century who thought he was a role model might have been reasonable to believe that, but that people who, in today's modern world, think that Mohammad is a good role model for all time (as the Islamic texts state) are delusional, right Q? Can we agree on that?

- - - Updated - - -

Language!

 

"Third of Syrian Refugees ISIS Sympathizers, 13 Percent Support". http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...efugees-isis-sympathizers-13-percent-support/

"Third" is hardly as low as my mere 6% (100 million Muslims), so again, I'm being super conservative in my 100 million figure. A "third" of the 1.5 billion Muslims would be HALF-A-BILLION MUSLIMS!! So it's easy to see that Mohammad is responsible for WWIII.

You seem to not understand that polls don't have to interview EVERY SINGLE person to be at least reasonably accurate. The more people interviewed the better yes, but the margin of error on most polls of normal sample sizes seems to usually not be over 3-5% or so.

 

EVERYONE back then was a terrorist!? EVERYONE beat their wife like Mohammad did back then? EVERYONE was a slave owner like Mohammad? You couldn't be more wrong. And stop basically trying to run interference for Islamic terrorism. We are at war, and the last thing we need is people defending the terrorism-motivating moral leader of the enemy! Join us in condemning the bigotry of the Islamic texts. You don't seem to be against bigotry.

 

Let your reply show that you steadfastly refuse to condemn "the 20% of British Muslims who sympathized with the 7/7 bombers.", even when asked point-blank to do so! No wonder Hillary/Obama/Democrats lost the presidency, the house, the congress, most governorships, and also most state houses - they, like you, steadfastly refused to condemn Mohammad/Muslims for their terrorist sympathy.

 

So Syrian refugees are all of the world's population of Muslims?

- - - Updated - - -

No, they instead did other things that we would also consider immoral.

What is point in judging ancient history by modern moral standards? Besides jerking off your ego so you brag about how much "better" you are.

- - - Updated - - -

Let your reply show that you are continuing to deflect from the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim you made rather than just admitting it was bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

You are right, they are not....so among ALL Muslims it's probably higher than the "third" mentioned in the article.

- - - Updated - - -

20% of the world idolizes that ancient barbarian though - TODAY. So that's why we are in the longest war in US history with no end in sight.

- - - Updated - - -

Let your reply show that you "steadfastly refuse to condemn "the 20% of British Muslims who sympathized with the 7/7 bombers.", even when asked point-blank to do so!"

People have no idea just how commonplace your acceptance of Islamic Jihadism is in the world today. MOST people assume "no one tries to defend the Islamic Jihadists"....but by your replies they would obviously be wrong. The fewer than think like you, then better the world will be.

The MESSENGER (me) seem to be more of a concern than the underlying texts which are responsible for the atrocities in the first place! The messenger (me) is just reporting on the atrocities, not the cause of said atrocities!

 

1. And now all you have to do is provide proof for THAT claim. But we all know you deliberately ignore evidence that doesn't conform to or protect your own bigoted worldview, just like a theist fundamentalist.

2. And we've already established that for millions of Muslims, their definition of "idolize" is not the same as yours, but you will of course ignore that...because it doesn't conform to your worldview, like the science of psychology.

 

I'm not the bigot, the bigot is a person like you who, when directly asked, can't bring themselves to condemn Mohammad or Jesus' bigotry in those texts. You run interference for their bigotry. You defend their bigotry. You can't condemn Mohammad for boasting "I have been made victorious with terror" (which of course inspires terrorists to this very day.) I condemn terrorism, and Mohammad boasts of being a terrorist, yet *I'm* the bad guy. Obviously people are starting to get sick of that attitude, and are turning to Trump, Brexit-type candidates, and even rejected the Italian top dog's ways the other day. The tide is turning against Mohammad.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, 20% of all humans idolize a pedo - just try going to any Muslim-majority country and condemning Mohammad on a street corner, or burning a Qur'an, and you'll end up in jail and tortured. Mo's savagery knew no bounds - and no Muslim will condemn his savagery. So it's obvious what that makes 20% of all humans.....

 

When asked if they will condemn Mo for, say, having innocent people (such as CRITICS of his) killed, I've never run across a Muslim who will condemn Mo for that. I'm sure the figure is over 98% who will defend him....just like YOU do, and you don't even claim to be a Muslim!

 

If we require people to get licenses before they can operate a car and then register their cars, attacks like we saw at OSU will not happen.

 

The big problem with your little theory is that no one cant tell a Muslims who follows the Qur'an (a Jihadist) from one who does not follow the Qur'an (a non-Jihadist.) The Muslims who follow the Qur'an can easily slip through.

 

You need to turn up the gain on your irony sensor.

 

Wait, we already register our cars. BAN CARS!!!!!!!