Warning to Gandalf. It shows human heads cut of by humans muslims!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=548lD5SvERk

Thank you for the video adamant.
Makes me ashamed to be lorded over by a bunch of gutless dhimmis in Congress that failed to acknowledge it.

It was a blueprint for Hitler and the Islamic Mufti of Jerusalem, just as surely as Muhammad and his genocide of the Medina Jews was - Satan's people VS Yahweh's people:

http://www.beholdthebeast.com/2e22cdb0.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sk3fKY9PhY

Here's a video by the granddaughter of a survivor of the Islamic genocide of the Armenians, who was raped and pressed into sexual slavery as Muhammad and his boys did, and Muhammad's followers do unto this day.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islamic_slavery_dhimmitude.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE-XI6blXB0

The Armenian genocide is just another episode in the long chapter in the 'clash of civilizations', where periodic massacres and mass expulsions carried out by both the Christian world and the Islamic world, was symptomatic of the usual tensions, mistrust and outright hostility that is inevitable when any two dominant world powers come head to head. Religious and ethnic minorities within both empires were used as political footballs in this power game - both to demonstrate a show of force to the rival power, as well as using them for convenient scapegoats to maintain support within. This pattern can be seen throughout history: the christian world periodically persecuting and massacring jewish and muslim minorities, and the muslim world doing the same to their jewish and christian minorities.

It is disingenuous to a) claim this was unique or even predominant in the muslim world b) claim an islamic (or christian for that matter) basis for this behaviour and c) deny that this periodic behaviour was interspersed on *BOTH* sides with extended periods of goodwill and tolerance towards their respective minorities. Thus, if we are to talk about "the true face of islam" it would be outright dishonest to ignore the bloodless capture of Jerusalem  in the 7th century, followed by an immediate reinstatement of jewish and certain christian groups who had been persecuted by the East Roman powers, worshiping rights in the city. Ended abruptly by the genocidal reconquest by christian powers a little over 400 years later, and reinstated after Saladin's conquest almost 100 years after. Or the flourishing of jewish culture under the Cordoba Caliphate, as well as numerous other jewish communities throughout the muslim world - from Persia to Morocco. The fact that both jewish and christian intellectuals were able to flourish and make such a valuable contribution to the advancement of science during the islamic golden age, debunks the myth of the christian and jew-hating, genocidal muslim barbarians.

The inescapable fact is that persecution and massacres of christian (and other) minorities in the muslim world, while deplorable and tragic, were relatively rare, and were a symptom of the tensions and conflicts that comes with a clash of civilizations - and was in no way unique to the muslim civilization. But overwhelmingly, the pattern of behaviour of the islamic civilization throughout history was to allow minority populations to coexist and flourish within their borders.

The things people do to other people are terrible to hear.

In the 1930's Jews killed up to 10 million christians in holodomor campaign.

Quote:

It is disingenuous to a) claim this was unique or even predominant in the muslim world b) claim an islamic (or christian for that matter) basis for this behaviour

Muhammed did lots of slaughtering, raping and pillaging. He also specifically endorsed it as part of Islam.


Quote:

The inescapable fact is that persecution and massacres of christian (and other) minorities in the muslim world, while deplorable and tragic, were relatively rare, and were a symptom of the tensions and conflicts that comes with a clash of civilizations - and was in no way unique to the muslim civilization. But overwhelmingly, the pattern of behaviour of the islamic civilization throughout history was to allow minority populations to coexist and flourish within their borders.

Muhammed and his immediate succesors did a good job of wiping out the pagans. Muhammed directly endorsed this. Muhammed took a region where Christians, Jews and Pagans were managing to co-exist as equals and replaced it with a society where Muslims were at the top, Christians and Jews under them, and Pagans at the bottom. "Existing" was about the extent of what he allowed, but even this right was not extended to the pagans.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2014 at 1:16pm:

Muhammed did lots of slaughtering, raping and pillaging. He also specifically endorsed it as part of Islam.

Back to this again.  You can pick a religion (basically any) and use their scriptures to justify all sorts of atrocious behaviour (see yadda and Pete regarding their "kind" genocides).

And the FD broken record continues...

Gud is great!

Stratos wrote on Mar 20^th, 2014 at 2:10pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 20th, 2014 at 1:16pm: Muhammed did lots of slaughtering, raping and pillaging. He also specifically endorsed it as part of Islam. Back to this again.  You can pick a religion (basically any) and use their scriptures to justify all sorts of atrocious behaviour (see yadda and Pete regarding their "kind" genocides).

Sure, if you look hard enough. That's a little bit different to basing the whole religion on a guy who personally murdered or ordered the execution of thousands of people, and who had a dozen wives and many sex slaves, and who destroyed a society based on equality and replaced it with an oppressive caste system, don't you think?

Or can you honestly not see the difference?


Quote:

And the FD broken record continues...

You brought it up Gandalf. Do you really expect people to not bat an eyelid when you claim there is no Islamic basis for this sort of thing?

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:

Sure, if you look hard enough.

Glad we agree.  Now maybe you will pay other religions the same favour you do to Islam and ruthlessly hunt down an misinterpret everything they ever do to try and portray them as some kind of society of evildoers, when in reality the majority are nothing like that.

Look hard enough, you WILL find horrible things happening in every organised group.  The current inquest into child protection should tell you that much.  For some reason though you always focus purely in Islam.... wonder why that could be.


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:

personally murdered or ordered the execution of thousands of people

Describes any number of Old Testament "heroes"


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:

who had a dozen wives and many sex slaves

Describes King Solomon (actually no, that playa had several hundred of each)


freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:

and who destroyed a society based on equality and replaced it with an oppressive caste system, don't you think?

See again, book of Judges etc, and the current people in the forum Pete and Yadda who firmly believe they were doing God's work by murdering foreigners babies.

Quote:

Glad we agree.  Now maybe you will pay other religions the same favour you do to Islam and ruthlessly hunt down an misinterpret everything they ever do

How many people did Jesus kill? How many did Budda kill? How many did Muhammed kill?


Quote:

Look hard enough, you WILL find horrible things happening in every organised group.

The difference with Islam is you don't have to look hard at all. Muslims will put it on a placard and walk down the street with it. Muhammed spent his life building an oppressive military empire. It is an inescapable part of Islam.


Quote:

For some reason though you always focus purely in Islam.... wonder why that could be.

Have you noticed which board we are on? Would you criticise me for talking about fishing on the fishing board? Or do you reserve this special logic for Islam? You are starting to sound like Brian Ross.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2014 at 7:19pm:

Quote: Glad we agree.  Now maybe you will pay other religions the same favour you do to Islam and ruthlessly hunt down an misinterpret everything they ever do How many people did Jesus kill? How many did Budda kill? How many did Muhammed kill? [quote]Look hard enough, you WILL find horrible things happening in every organised group.

The difference with Islam is you don't have to look hard at all. Muslims will put it on a placard and walk down the street with it. Muhammed spent his life building an oppressive military empire. It is an inescapable part of Islam.


Quote:

For some reason though you always focus purely in Islam.... wonder why that could be.

Have you noticed which board we are on? Would you criticise me for talking about fishing on the fishing board? Or do you reserve this special logic for Islam? You are starting to sound like Brian Ross.[/quote]


Budda wasn't a prophet.

When jesus comes back he will come back with a sword and fight those who don't agree with him.

freediver wrote on Mar 20^th, 2014 at 6:57pm:

Do you really expect people to not bat an eyelid when you claim there is no Islamic basis for this sort of thing?

Of course not FD, far too many people are just like you - sadly. But if we are looking for an "islamic basis" for the treatment of christians, there is the Achtiname of Muhammad. There is no "islamic basis" for slaughtering women and children - which is what the Turks did to the Armenians. Even in your twisted mind you would argue that the "islamic" way would be to spare the women and keep them as sex slaves.

Why can't such events as the capture of Jerusalem, where jews and christians who were persecuted by the Byzantines  immediately had their worshipping and human rights restored - be counted as an "islamic example"?

Minorities in great civilizations have suffered periodic persecutions since time immemorial. Islam is no exception. The causes for this are easy to understand, and there is no need to dig up doctrinal justifications. We don't search for biblical explanations for things like the genocide of the saxons by Charlemagne, or the anhialation of the once thriving jewish population of Spain - even though religion was heavilly invoked while those atrocities happened. I suppose one thing that makes the islamic empires stand out is that they broke the trend of simply wholesale annihilation of entire ethnic groups. Thus the existence of minorities tended to stick out - because they existed.

I think the Canaanite tangent deserves its own topic - and not on this forum.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Quote:

Even in your twisted mind you would argue that the "islamic" way would be to spare the women and keep them as sex slaves.

Why is it twisted to assume that the example set and decreed by Muhammed is the Islamic way? Doesn't this make Islam itself twisted? Was Muhammed twisted?


Quote:

Why can't such events as the capture of Jerusalem, where jews and christians who were persecuted by the Byzantines  immediately had their worshipping and human rights restored - be counted as an "islamic example"?

Sure. Which hand Muhammed used to wipe his arse with is also an Islamic example. Islam may be nice to people who surrender unconditionally to it, but this is hardly a virtue. It is cold military strategy.


Quote:

Minorities in great civilizations have suffered periodic persecutions since time immemorial. Islam is no exception.

Islam is an exception because people are deluded into thinking it is a virtuous religion rather than grubby politics from a violent era. Even by the standards of 7th century Arabia Muhammed set the bar pretty low.


Quote:

The causes for this are easy to understand

Yes. Muhammed was a megalomaniac who excused anything in the pursuit of power and pussy.


Quote:

and there is no need to dig up doctrinal justifications

Muslims feel the need to, and you are lying if you suggest the ease with which Islam justifies violence has no effect on modern Muslims.


Quote:

I suppose one thing that makes the islamic empires stand out is that they broke the trend of simply wholesale annihilation of entire ethnic groups.

This is the opposite of reality. Muhammed's execution of 800 Jews in one day goes against the standard of the time. Muhammed wiping out pagan villages because they refused to accept his religion went against the standards typical of the time.

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 7:17pm:

Muslims feel the need to, and you are lying if you suggest the ease with which Islam justifies violence has no effect on modern Muslims.

Of course it does. I'm sure many of the Turks invoked some islamic justification for carrying out the Armenian genocide too (and its likely many didn't either). But Islam does not explain that genocide, just as christianity does not explain the many genocides against non-christians - even though religion was heavilly invoked while those were  carried out.

You also need to understand that you are lying if you suggest that the non-violence that islam proscribes towards non-muslims has no effect on the long and proud history (notwithstanding some notable exceptions) of accepting non-muslims, and allowing them to prosper within muslim lands. The example of how they treated the jewish and christian populations of Jerusalem - after centuries of christian persecution - is just one example.

Quote:

You also need to understand that you are lying if you suggest that the non-violence that islam proscribes towards non-muslims

This is a lie. Muhammed was a violent man. he specifically called for violence. He made violence part of Islam. He merely made it subservient to the interests of the state. No ideology ever promotes constant violence, but you are being deceptive if you equate this with an ideology of non-violence.


Quote:

has no effect on the long and proud history (notwithstanding some notable exceptions) of accepting non-muslims, and allowing them to prosper within muslim lands

Muslims slaughtered non-Muslims when it suited them. They allowed them to survive when it suited them. This rarely amounted to prospering. Islam barely allows Muslims to prosper.


Quote:

The example of how they treated the jewish and christian populations of Jerusalem - after centuries of christian persecution - is just one example.

Is this like your "aborigines are white collar criminals" argument? Why do you so readily accept the stupidity of the abstract example, but throw this principle out the window in deference to Islam?

The statement ** the long and proud history (notwithstanding some notable exceptions) of accepting non-muslims, and allowing them to prosper within muslim lands.** should be shifted into the **In honour of Asma bint Marwan and others murdered** thread.

Then again he probably wasn't joking. But engaging in deadly serious lies in order to hide the truth about islam.

The following extracts show the truth:


Quote:

MYTH 1: “Jews who lived in Islamic countries were well-treated by the Arabs.” FACT When Jews were perceived as having achieved too comfortable a position in Islamic society, anti-Semitism would surface, often with devastating results. On December 30, 1066, Joseph HaNagid, the Jewish vizier of Granada, Spain, was crucified by an Arab mob that proceeded to raze the Jewish quarter of the city and slaughter its 5,000 inhabitants. The riot was incited by Muslim preachers who had angrily objected to what they saw as inordinate Jewish political power. Similarly, in 1465, Arab mobs in Fez slaughtered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, after a Jewish deputy vizier treated a Muslim woman in “an offensive manner.” The killings touched off a wave of similar massacres throughout Morocco.20 Other mass murders of Jews in Arab lands occurred in Morocco in the 8th century, where whole communities were wiped out by the Muslim ruler Idris I; North Africa in the 12th century, where the Almohads either forcibly converted or decimated several communities; Libya in 1785, where Ali Burzi Pasha murdered hundreds of Jews; Algiers, where Jews were massacred in 1805, 1815 and 1830; and Marrakesh, Morocco, where more than 300 Jews were murdered between 1864 and 1880.21 Decrees ordering the destruction of synagogues were enacted in Egypt and Syria (1014, 1293-4, 1301-2), Iraq (854­-859, 1344) and Yemen (1676). Despite the Koran’s prohibition, Jews were forced to convert to Islam or face death in Yemen (1165 and 1678), Morocco (1275, 1465 and 1790-92) and Baghdad (1333 and 1344).22 The situation of Jews in Arab lands reached a low point in the 19th century. Jews in most of North Africa (including Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Morocco) were forced to live in ghettos. In Morocco, which contained the largest Jewish community in the Islamic Diaspora, Jews were made to walk barefoot or wear shoes of straw when outside the ghetto. Even Muslim children participated in the degradation of Jews, by throwing stones at them or harassing them in other ways. The frequency of anti-Jewish violence increased, and many Jews were executed on charges of apostasy. Ritual murder accusations against the Jews became commonplace in the Ottoman Empire. MYTH 2: “As ‘People of the Book,’ Jews and Christians are protected under Islamic law.” FACT This argument is rooted in the traditional concept of the “dhimma” (“writ of protection”), which was extended by Muslim conquerors to Christians and Jews in exchange for their subordination to the Muslims. Yet, as French authority Jacques Ellul has observed: “One must ask:‘protected against whom?’ When this ‘stranger’ lives in Islamic countries, the answer can only be: against the Muslims themselves.”27 Peoples subjected to Muslim rule usually had a choice between death and conversion, but Jews and Christians, who adhered to the Scriptures, were usually allowed, as dhimmis, to practice their faith. This “protection” did little, however, to insure that Jews and Christians were treated well by the Muslims. On the contrary, an integral aspect of the dhimma was that, being an infidel, he had to acknowledge openly the superiority of the true believer — the Muslim. In the early years of the Islamic conquest, the “tribute” (or jizya), paid as a yearly poll tax, symbolized the subordination of the dhimmi.28 Later, the inferior status of Jews and Christians was reinforced through a series of regulations that governed the behavior of the dhimmi. Dhimmis, on pain of death, were forbidden to mock or criticize the Koran, Islam or Muhammad, to proselytize among Muslims, or to touch a Muslim woman (though a Muslim man could take a non-Muslim as a wife). Dhimmis were excluded from public office and armed service, and were forbidden to bear arms. They were not allowed to ride horses or camels, to build synagogues or churches taller than mosques, to construct houses higher than those of Muslims or to drink wine in public. They were forced to wear distinctive clothing and were not allowed to pray or mourn in loud voices — as that might offend Muslims. The dhimmi also had to show public deference toward Muslims; for example, always yielding them the center of the road. The dhimmi was not allowed to give evidence in court against a Muslim, and his oath was unacceptable in an Islamic court. To defend himself, the dhimmi would have to purchase Muslim witnesses at great expense. This left the dhimmi with little legal recourse when harmed by a Muslim.29 By the twentieth century, the status of the dhimmi in Muslim lands had not significantly improved. H.E.W. Young, British Vice Consul in Mosul, wrote in 1909: The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves, whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed.

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 1:09pm:

This is a lie. Muhammed was a violent man. he specifically called for violence. He made violence part of Islam. He merely made it subservient to the interests of the state.

In all seriousness FD, how would you know when you have never read a biography of Muhammad, nor are familiar with any of the ahadeeth? Its a serious question.

The pre-eminent scholarly authorities on the historical Muhammad, historians such as Bernard Lewis and Montgomery Watt, completely reject your idea of warmongering and aggressive violence as an inherent and essential aspect of Islam. Watt emphasises the social justice message of Muhammad and the Quran, and his desire to end oppression, while Lewis argues that modern day Islamic terrorism has no basis whatsoever in Islamic doctrine. Thats two of the most prominent and respected authorities on Islam, and backed up by a long list of other historians. Against what FD? You using your prejudice and a few misconstrued posts from a couple of muslims on an internet forum to twist what little knowledge you have on Muhammad to paint the historical picture that suits your agenda?

Says Lewis:


Quote:

In Lewis' view, the "by now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century" with "no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition."[44] He further comments that "the fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible" and that "generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis#Views_on_Islam


freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 1:09pm:

No ideology ever promotes constant violence, but you are being deceptive if you equate this with an ideology of non-violence.

And you are being deceptive if you equate this with my argument. Islam is not a pacifist religion. It unashamedly promotes violence strictly according to a just war theory. Pretty much in line with the rest of humanity.


freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 1:09pm:

Is this like your "aborigines are white collar criminals" argument? Why do you so readily accept the stupidity of the abstract example, but throw this principle out the window in deference to Islam?

Jerusalem is not an abstract example. It was, and remains extremely specific to both the jewish and christian worlds. Also muslim's behaviour as conquerers and rulers stood in stark contrast to the christian rulers and conquerers. Muslims first captured the city without bloodshed, and its first order of business was to reinstate both jewish and (all) christian's worshipping and residential rights. Then the Christians captured it in a bloodbath, and not long after Saladin captured it during a brief siege and once again reinstated the rights of jews and christians, and gave safe passage to those who fled the city.

But its not the only example, I could mention the treatment of jews during most of islamic rule, or the achtiname of Muhammad, which arguably set the precedent for the acceptance and tolerance of christians during most of islamic rule, or even Abu Bakr's 10 rules of war, which has undeniably formed a core basis of both Islamic jursts and leaders' proscriptions for such things as the humane treatment of non-combatants and preservation of civilian infrastructure. Which incidentally is also re-emphasised in the Quran.

Quote:

The pre-eminent scholarly authorities on the historical Muhammad, historians such as Bernard Lewis and Montgomery Watt, completely reject your idea of warmongering and aggressive violence as an inherent and essential aspect of Islam.

Shame so many Muslims have it wrong eh?


Quote:

Watt emphasises the social justice message of Muhammad and the Quran, and his desire to end oppression

Whose desire? Muhammed's? He created oppression where there was none before.


Quote:

Against what FD? You using your prejudice and a few misconstrued posts from a couple of muslims on an internet forum to twist what little knowledge you have on Muhammad to paint the historical picture that suits your agenda?

I use the actions of Muhammed himself. For example, he once slaughtered 800 Jewish POWs in one day. It does not matter who I heard this from. What matters is that it is true.


Quote:

It unashamedly promotes violence strictly according to a just war theory.

And executing 800 POWs in one day. Nice theory.


Quote:

Pretty much in line with the rest of humanity.

Except of course all those "wishy washy western liberal morals" you take issue with.


Quote:

Jerusalem is not an abstract example. It was, and remains extremely specific to both the jewish and christian worlds. Also muslim's behaviour as conquerers and rulers stood in stark contrast to the christian rulers and conquerers. Muslims first captured the city without bloodshed, and its first order of business was to reinstate both jewish and (all) christian's worshipping and residential rights

So one example where Muslims refrained from going on the rampage somehow nullifies all the crap that Muhammed himself, and all the other violent Muslims throughout history have done?

its like you're not even trying anymore FD.

Your response here is beyond pathetic.

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 7:52pm:

how would you know when you have never read a biography of Muhammad The pre-eminent scholarly authorities on the historical Muhammad, historians such as Bernard Lewis and Montgomery Watt, completely reject your idea of warmongering and aggressive violence as an inherent and essential aspect of Islam. Islam is not a pacifist religion. It unashamedly promotes violence strictly according to a just war theory.

I prefer the biographies of Muhammad written by Islamic scholars, you have the first one Sirat Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq which is a free download,Ibn Hisham and of course The Sealed Nectar.

Montgomery Watt became interested in Islam because of an Ahmadi, the Ahmadi are persecuted by mainstream Islam because of heretical beliefs,The Ahmadi cannot even call themselves muslims where they originated from in Pakistan,if they cannot call themselves muslims is that a credible source?

Quote:

He became interested in Islam through lengthy conversations with an Indian lodger who was of the Ahmadi persuasion www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/professor-w-montgomery-watt-423394.html

The sealed nectar was awarded first prize by the muslim world league, it is a biography of Muhammad,perhaps that is a more credible source-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ar-Raheeq_Al-Makhtum

I like this review from the sunni forum-

Quote:

I am almost finished reading the book,The Sealed Nectar,There are a lot of beheadings and violence,plots,and killing of non muslims just because they are non muslims..i thought Islam was a religion of peace. www.sunniforum.com/forum/showthread.php?87415-A-Question-about-the-Sealed-Nectar-book

I started a thread on the sealed nectar which has a link to a free download-
www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375097576

Why do you give credibility to biographies written by non muslims over biographies that are award winning and written by muslims?
I think the biographies written by muslims about Muhammad have far more credibility.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2014 at 12:57am:

The sealed nectar

Ah yes, I seem to remember last time we talked about that - you shut up pretty quickly when I quoted the account of clear and blatant treachery and acts of war by the Qurayza against the muslims.

I agree - the Sealed Nectar is a great source for painting Muhammad in a good light. I have no idea why you would think its incriminating though.


Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2014 at 12:57am:

Why do you give credibility to biographies written by non muslims over biographies that are award winning and written by muslims?

Because they're less biassed?

Duh??  ::)

Found this extract which seems to point out that muhammad hated peace


Quote:

Al-Bukhari also collected this Hadith. Imam Ahmad and Abu Dawud (this is the version of Abu Dawud) recorded that Ibn `Umar said, "I heard the Messenger of Allah saying, إِإِذَا تَبَايَعْتُمْ بِالْعِينَةِ وَأَخَذْتُمْ بِأَذْنَابِ الْبَقَرِ وَرَضِيتُمْ بِالزَّرْعِ، وَتَرَكْتُمُ الْجِهَادَ سَلَّطَ اللهُ عَلَيْكُمْ ذُلًّا لَا يَنْزِعُهُ حَتَّى تَرْجِعُوا إِلَى دِينِكُم» Translation: If you follow the tails of cows (tilling the land), become content with agriculture and abandoned Jihad, Allah will send on you disgrace that He will not remove until, you return to your religion.)''

muhammad certainly was not a peaceful man. he was a warmonger, thief, liar, pedophile, rapist, torturer and mass murderer.

Yet despite the actual degeneracy and malevolence displayed by muslims throughout their entire history, plus the evilness of their writings, sacred text etc., muslims and their apologists still lie and whine on about islam being peaceful.

But then again they have to continually lie, because the truth will destroy islam

Love your apologetic work Gandalf.

Lets start with muslims loving all in Spain, 1066, 3500 to 7000 Jews killed by muslims in Granada in a couple of days. Putting that into perspective only about 330 people were killed by the Spanish Inquisition over centuries.

Italy, Oranto 600 people lost heads by Ottomans because they refused to become muslem ( see the heads in the knave)

Africa, you Shiites were the biggest slave traders of all time possibly killing up to 250 mill.

India 80 mill dead at the hands of and for islam/muslims.

I have ignored wally1 comment as true Shi'ite.

Gandalf wrote:


Quote:

"I think the Canaanite tangent deserves its own topic - and not on this forum. Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic."

I agree it deserved its own thread gand, and I wanted to start one in this forum section, but didn't because I knew it would be unrelated to the subject of Islam (as are all things in scripture, that do other than warn God's people about false prophets and Islam).
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muhammad_islam_in_bible_prophecy.htm#the_conflict

I replied to your post on the Canaanite thread at this link:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1395349065/5#5

Adamant wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2014 at 6:09pm:

Love your apologetic work Gandalf. Lets start with muslims loving all in Spain, 1066, 3500 to 7000 Jews killed by muslims in Granada in a couple of days. Putting that into perspective only about 330 people were killed by the Spanish Inquisition over centuries. Italy, Oranto 600 people lost heads by Ottomans because they refused to become muslem ( see the heads in the knave) Africa, you Shiites were the biggest slave traders of all time possibly killing up to 250 mill. India 80 mill dead at the hands of and for islam/muslims.

Oh look, the source nazi stumbles in with a whole heap of unsourced claims.

Weren't you screaming about plagiarism last time someone else did that?

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 25^th, 2014 at 12:39pm:

Oh look, the source nazi stumbles in with a whole heap of unsourced claims.Weren't you screaming about plagiarism last time someone else did that?

Gandalf I have already proven these things happened in previous threads Abu and Falah admitted they are true but had muslim excuses for the atrocities. I suggest you now, as a muslim apologetic go do your homework, check out previous threads and report back that you are in error.

Happy hunting as the search engine on this site is less than good.

Adamant wrote on Mar 26^th, 2014 at 3:32pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 25th, 2014 at 12:39pm: Oh look, the source nazi stumbles in with a whole heap of unsourced claims.Weren't you screaming about plagiarism last time someone else did that? Abu and Falah admitted they are true

Of course.

Karnal wrote on Mar 26^th, 2014 at 4:39pm:

Adamant wrote on Mar 26th, 2014 at 3:32pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 25th, 2014 at 12:39pm: Oh look, the source nazi stumbles in with a whole heap of unsourced claims.Weren't you screaming about plagiarism last time someone else did that? Abu and Falah admitted they are true Of course.

Sir Kernal? Obviously a devout a Devout Female Governor General 

I think I might become Admiral Adamant or a General Adamant, I have in the past been awarded the BCF DCM Adamant, that will suffice at the moment.

Adamant wrote on Mar 26^th, 2014 at 5:06pm:

Karnal wrote on Mar 26th, 2014 at 4:39pm: Adamant wrote on Mar 26th, 2014 at 3:32pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Mar 25th, 2014 at 12:39pm: Oh look, the source nazi stumbles in with a whole heap of unsourced claims.Weren't you screaming about plagiarism last time someone else did that? Abu and Falah admitted they are true Of course. Sir Kernal? Obviously a devout a Devout Female Governor General  I think I might become Admiral Adamant or a General Adamant, I have in the past been awarded the BCF DCM Adamant, that will suffice at the moment.

Good idea. Then you could run Operation Sovereign Borders.

Is this tough love or muslim love, or tough love muslim?

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=699_1400360595

Ah ISIS - the guys who are too extreme even for Al Qaeda

polite_gandalf wrote on May 20^th, 2014 at 1:52pm:

Ah ISIS - the guys who are too extreme even for Al Qaeda

It is Muslim Killing Muslim though is it not Gandalf. Like Islam means Peace? Where are the Brothers showing love?

polite_gandalf wrote on May 20^th, 2014 at 1:52pm:

Ah ISIS - the guys who are too extreme even for Al Qaeda

ABOVE, is yet another moslem LIE.

It is a LIE that has been 'confected' [by the moslem community], and it is a LIE that is being 'consumed' by ignorant [and naive] infidels.

ISIS - are the guys who are - BEING PORTRAYED - as too extreme even for Al Qaeda.




THE TRUTH ???

The reality ?

ISIS - are the guys who are - IN COMPETITION WITH - Al Qaeda.

And therefore, ISIS are the guys who have brought themselves into conflict with - Al Qaeda.




Al Qaeda = = "We are the real, the pure, moslems!!!"

ISIS = = "No!!! No!!!      We ISIS, are the real, the pure, moslems!!!"

No no! We Karmic Christians are the real, pure Moslems!

Gud is great!

+++

If gud is so great, why did he make muslims?

hazy123 wrote on May 20^th, 2014 at 9:18pm:

If gud is so great, why did he make muslims?

They made Him in their own image.

Gud is great, you know.

Karnal wrote on May 20^th, 2014 at 9:15pm:

No no! We Karmic Christians are the real, pure Moslems! Gud is great! +++

Yes, K......

"We Karmic Christians are the real, pure Moslems!"

"And the moslems are the infidels!"


Black is White.

And White is Black.

Good is Evil.

And Evil is Good.



SATAN is the author of confusion.

SATAN wants to create confusion in every man/woman.

The souls who are filled with confusion, will always make poor choices, and will continue to do so.





Karmic Christians ?

Galatians 6:7
Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8  For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.


Luke 21:35
For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
36  Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Why did muslims make mohammad?

We needed a conduit to the angel Gabriel.

Allah Uakbar.

Muslims created Mohammed in their own image.

Seems to have been a bit of incestuous inbreeding on the part of the serpents.

The chief serpent allah over his own daughter, I think is the lineage of muhammad (according to the chronicles of ethopianjew).

---

Muslim Jihad in NZ? I blame Falah he was a salafist.

The centre's administrator was brutally beaten two weeks ago after issuing trespass orders to a Salafist imam and some of his supporters, and spent 10 days in hospital with fractures and eye injuries.


Two Islamic factions have been embroiled in a battle for control at the mosque for over two years

http://mobile.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.php?c_id=1&objectid=11257805

freediver wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 7:17pm:

Why is it twisted to assume that the example set and decreed by Muhammed is the Islamic way? Doesn't this make Islam itself twisted? Was Muhammed twisted?

ooh lets get FD to refute FD...


freediver wrote on Feb 25^th, 2008 at 12:46pm:

Islam does not see religious law as static (from what has been posted here anyway). Many see that as a bad thing, but it is actually a good thing. Muhammed was a political ruler as well as a religious leader. Unfortunately this means a lot of his teaching were very specific, whereas most religions focus heavily on values. To forbid people from changing the specific laws would be bad. The problem is not the religion, but the conservative culture that has grown up around it. To lump politics, culture and religion together as one is misleading and unnecessary. You can change the culture and politics far easier than you can change the religion.

....


freediver wrote on Apr 27^th, 2008 at 8:44pm:

So if the extremists are right and Islam really is antithetical to democracy, how do you account for countries with a majority muslim population that hold on to democracy? Has democracy destroyed Islam, or has Islam merely adapted, like Christianity, to the will of the people?

FD also posted a few articles in that thread arguing how Islam is not inherently opposed to freedom and democracy.

FD, why are you so adamant now that the specific examples and laws laid down by Muhammad as a political leader are intractable, set-in-stone tenets of Islam today? Why do you so relentlessly bang on about the banu qurayza "example" today to argue about devout muslims having no choice but to be brutal thugs - when you had already acknowledged such an "example" was something for that place and time, which could - ney should be changed and done so without necessarily abandoning the values of the religion? Sure you will cite the testimony of Abu and others - but why are you no longer open to the views of muslims such as the ones you quoted in 2007 arguing for Islam's compatibility with the values of modern liberalism?

I don't think FD's going to answer that one, G. If you're not careful, he'll start "ignoring" you too.

Karnal wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 1:32pm:

I don't think FD's going to answer that one, G. If you're not careful, he'll start "ignoring" you too.

He's trying to work out how he can pose it as a question that will incriminate me in some way.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 11:57am:

freediver wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:17pm: Why is it twisted to assume that the example set and decreed by Muhammed is the Islamic way? Doesn't this make Islam itself twisted? Was Muhammed twisted? ooh lets get FD to refute FD... freediver wrote on Feb 25th, 2008 at 12:46pm: Islam does not see religious law as static (from what has been posted here anyway). Many see that as a bad thing, but it is actually a good thing. Muhammed was a political ruler as well as a religious leader. Unfortunately this means a lot of his teaching were very specific, whereas most religions focus heavily on values. To forbid people from changing the specific laws would be bad. The problem is not the religion, but the conservative culture that has grown up around it. To lump politics, culture and religion together as one is misleading and unnecessary. You can change the culture and politics far easier than you can change the religion. .... freediver wrote on Apr 27th, 2008 at 8:44pm: So if the extremists are right and Islam really is antithetical to democracy, how do you account for countries with a majority muslim population that hold on to democracy? Has democracy destroyed Islam, or has Islam merely adapted, like Christianity, to the will of the people? FD also posted a few articles in that thread arguing how Islam is not inherently opposed to freedom and democracy. FD, why are you so adamant now that the specific examples and laws laid down by Muhammad as a political leader are intractable, set-in-stone tenets of Islam today? Why do you so relentlessly bang on about the banu qurayza "example" today to argue about devout muslims having no choice but to be brutal thugs - when you had already acknowledged such an "example" was something for that place and time, which could - ney should be changed and done so without necessarily abandoning the values of the religion? Sure you will cite the testimony of Abu and others - but why are you no longer open to the views of muslims such as the ones you quoted in 2007 arguing for Islam's compatibility with the values of modern liberalism?

Are you saying fd is not allowed to change his mind on certain subjects Gandalf?

I know a few people who were Islamic apologists now they say Islam is bullshit barfed up by a 7th century desert bandit.

The true face of Islam-
Islamic republic of Iran
Saudi Arabia
Taliban
Boko Haram
Al Shaabab
Islamic state.

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 4:42pm:

Are you saying fd is not allowed to change his mind on certain subjects Gandalf?

No. I guess what I'm saying is its completely absurd for FD to make the exact same leaps of logic that he himself had criticised and debunked before.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 4:50pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 4:42pm: Are you saying fd is not allowed to change his mind on certain subjects Gandalf? No. I guess what I'm saying is its completely absurd for FD to make the exact same leaps of logic that he himself had criticised and debunked before.

Perhaps FD has realised the error of his ways after learning about Islam.

Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 4:54pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 4:50pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 4:42pm: Are you saying fd is not allowed to change his mind on certain subjects Gandalf? No. I guess what I'm saying is its completely absurd for FD to make the exact same leaps of logic that he himself had criticised and debunked before. Perhaps FD has realised the error of his ways after learning about Islam.

Indeed.

"The scales have fallen from his eyes" is the expression.

polite_gandalf wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 4:33pm:

Karnal wrote on Sep 30th, 2015 at 1:32pm: I don't think FD's going to answer that one, G. If you're not careful, he'll start "ignoring" you too. He's trying to work out how he can pose it as a question that will incriminate me in some way.

gandalf,

I suspect that on being exposed to more and 'different' information [about the nature of ISLAM], FD decided to 'sail in a different direction', so to speak.




But gandalf, what about the choices, of a person like yourself ?

?????????


e.g.
When you are confronted with information [in authentic ISLAMIC texts] which speak about, and describe, Mohammed's character,       ...are you not repulsed, by such a psyche, as that possessed by Mohammed ?



gandalf,

Every moslem [as an article of faith'], must revere, 'Allah's messenger', Mohammed.


QUESTION;
gandalf, why are you, yourself, stuck in that particular 'rut' ?      [i.e. still revering Mohammed]

Perhaps you believe that those accounts of Mohammed's choices, unfairly slander and/or are actually misrepresenting the character of Mohammed ???

Even though those accounts are recorded in ISLAMIC texts, which have been accredited with authenticity by ISLAMIC scholars ???




.



Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1443218540/174#174

Quote:

STRAIGHT FROM THE PROPHETS MOUTH ------------- > "I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "The example of a Mujahid [religious fighter] in Allah's Cause-- and Allah knows better who really strives in His Cause----is like a person who fasts and prays continuously. Allah guarantees that He will admit the Mujahid in His Cause into Paradise if he is killed, otherwise He will return him to his home safely with rewards and war booty." " hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.046 In the Hadith verse above, Mohammed is reported as saying that for a moslem, religious fighting, is the same as a religious devotion. i.e. Jihad [religious fighting], is as if a muslim 'fasts and prays continuously'. And in Koran 9.111, Allah guarantees that a Mujahid [religious fighter] will enter Paradise, if he is killed, while seeking to kill Allah's enemies. "Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." " hadith/bukhari/ #001.002.025 see also, hadith/bukhari/ #004.052.065 hadith/bukhari/ #004.052.080i hadith/bukhari/ #004.052.196 "Allah's Apostle was asked, "What is the best deed?" He replied, "To believe in Allah and His Apostle (Muhammad). The questioner then asked, "What is the next (in goodness)? He replied, "To participate in Jihad (religious fighting) in Allah's Cause." " hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #001.002.025 . MURDERING DISBELIEVERS IS LAWFUL THE HADITH.... "...the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him." - DEAD. hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #004.052.260 ISLAMIC LAW.... "Ibn 'Abbas reported that the Prophet said: "The bare essence of Islam and the basics of the religion are three [acts], upon which Islam has been established. Whoever leaves one of them becomes an unbeliever and his blood may legally be spilled. [The acts are:] Testifying that there is no God except Allah, the obligatory prayers, and the fast of Ramadan."...." fiqhussunnah/#3.110 n.b. "Whoever......becomes an unbeliever.....his blood may legally be spilled." THE EXAMPLE OF MOHAMMED [Allah's messenger] MOHAMMED INSTRUCTS THE MOSLEM, THAT MURDERING FOR HIS 'RELIGION' IS HALAL.... "Allah's Apostle said, "Who is willing to kill Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf who has hurt Allah and His Apostle?" Thereupon Muhammad bin Maslama got up saying, "O Allah's Apostle! Would you like that I kill him?" The Prophet said, "Yes," Muhammad bin Maslama said, "Then allow me to say a (false) thing (i.e. to deceive Kab). "The Prophet said, "You may say it." " hadithsunnah/bukhari/ #005.059.369 MOHAMMED [Allah's messenger] INSTRUCTS THE MOSLEM, THAT MURDERING A POETESS [WHO IS 'THREATENING' HIS 'RELIGION'] IS HALAL.... [quote]Ishaq: 676 “[Context note: Asma bint Marwan was a writer. She wrote critically of Muhammad, telling her tribe to be wary of him, like this:] ‘You obey a stranger who encourages you to murder for booty. You are greedy men. Is there no honor among you?’ Upon hearing those lines Muhammad said, ‘Will no one rid me of this woman?’ Umayr, a zealous Muslim, decided to execute the Prophet’s wishes. That very night he crept into the writer’s home while she lay sleeping surrounded by her young children. There was one at her breast. Umayr removed the suckling baby and then plunged his sword into the poet. The next morning in the mosque, Muhammad, who was aware of the assassination, said, ‘You have helped Allah and His Apostle.’ Umayr said, ‘She had five sons; should I feel guilty?’ ‘No,’ the Prophet answered. ‘Killing her was as meaningless as two goats butting heads.’ ”

http://www.foundalis.com/rlg/Islam_and_peace.htm

[/quote]

Does Islam actually have a face? I always thought that it was just another repressive and dogmatic religion, with crusty, frock-wearing old men at the helm. Do children in Muslim countries actually have a choice to not be indoctrinated with Islam? What do they teach in Muslim schools? Creationism or Evolution? Which Muslim countries guarantee freedom of and from religion in their Constitutions and actively protect minority ethnic and religious groups? What are the immigration policies of Muslims countries? Do they encourage and foster diversity, tolerance and understanding?

Why do Muslims continue with their repressive, restrictive customs and beliefs, after they have moved to a modern, enlightened, secular society? I've heard them say that they want to be free and live in peace. Yet, the way they behave belies that clearly.

Why do Muslims assume that, once they have moved to the West, their religious beliefs, customs and behaviors should never be questioned or criticized?

I also find it interesting that most 'devout' Muslims I have come across, define themselves by their religion, not their humanity.

So, how would one describe the face of Islam?

valleyboy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 3:42am:

Does Islam actually have a face? I always thought that it was just another repressive and dogmatic religion, with crusty, frock-wearing old men at the helm. Do children in Muslim countries actually have a choice to not be indoctrinated with Islam? What do they teach in Muslim schools? Creationism or Evolution? Which Muslim countries guarantee freedom of and from religion in their Constitutions and actively protect minority ethnic and religious groups? What are the immigration policies of Muslims countries? Do they encourage and foster diversity, tolerance and understanding? Why do Muslims continue with their repressive, restrictive customs and beliefs, after they have moved to a modern, enlightened, secular society? I've heard them say that they want to be free and live in peace. Yet, the way they behave belies that clearly. Why do Muslims assume that, once they have moved to the West, their religious beliefs, customs and behaviors should never be questioned or criticized? I also find it interesting that most 'devout' Muslims I have come across, define themselves by their religion, not their humanity. So, how would one describe the face of Islam?

QUESTION;
"Why do Muslims continue with their repressive, restrictive customs and beliefs, after they have moved to a modern, enlightened, secular society?"


ANSWER;
Because they are,     .....moslems.



Dictionary;
Muslim = = a follower of Islam.


Google;
Shahada, confession of faith, of a muslim

"There is no god except for Allah alone; and Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah."




.




Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1418244166/15#15

Quote:

You mean that we [infidels, on OzPol] are guilty of 'stereotyping' members of the Australian mainstream moslem community!!!! Shock horror!!!! Fancy having the gall to associate moslems,     .......with,      .....moslems! Fancy having the gall to associate moslems,     .......with,      .....ISLAM [and with ISLAM's laws and tenets] ! Dictionary; Muslim = = a follower of Islam. Google; Shahada, confession of faith, of a muslim

.





Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1431117115/1#1

Quote:

"every moslem in Australia is a latent, wanna-be homicidal maniac" - Yadda QUESTION; What about the innocent moslems ? IMO, [logically] there are no innocent moslems [among persons who have come to the age of consent], and yet still declare themselves to be moslems. How so [logically] ? QUESTION; How credible is it that a person who is devout enough to insist that he is a moslem, is unaware of what ISLAM promotes, and is unaware of what the principle tenets of ISLAM are ? QUESTION; How 'innocent' is a person who agrees to give aid and comfort [and to give their own 'power'],      ...to a philosophy which transforms human beings, into homicidal maniacs ? QUESTION; How 'innocent' is a person who agrees to give aid and comfort [and to give their own 'power'],     ...to a philosophy which claims that murdering, in the cause of religious bigotry, is a religious virtue ?

.




CRIMINAL INTENT, IN THE MOSLEM HEART
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1252898491/0#0

Quote:

Every moslem in Australia [and indeed, every moslem on the planet], by self declaring as a moslem, is self declaring a criminal intent [by our laws] against local non-moslems. ISLAM is a criminal compact among moslems, to wage a violent 'religious' war against non-moslems ['disbelievers']. .....Basically, fundamentally, all ISLAMIC doctrine translates as enmity, and encourages [criminal] violence, towards ALL non-moslems.

A couple of days back, President Obama said that IS would not be defeated on the battlefield, and that its ideology had to be defeated. He went on to condemn those who pervert Islam. Of course we have heard this before from most Western leaders. Such statements imply that Obama and others have understandings of Islam and its agenda, but they are not too forthcoming with any facts to defend Islam, other than a general idea that all religions are of the same value, and should be tolerated in the same way.

It’s a nice idea, but it is not borne out by Muzzlim murders of Western Infidels since 1990. These murders, in the hundreds and thousands are passed off as the work of criminals or the insane, not pious Muzzlims . If Western leaders actually think Islam is being perverted they have not presented a believable case. No other religious group has killed and maimed so many of us in the last 25 years; not even in tiny numbers has any other religion murder us Infidels, but it is a religious vendetta by the culprits own admission.

I suspect the policy of appeasement, which is wide spread, is one where the leaders realise that if popular indignation at the murder of Infidels were allowed to sway policy, the Muzzlim world would be in big trouble. So Presidents like Obama are willing to accept a few hundred murders here and there just to keep the peace. The question is, how long the pretence can be kept up.

You do actually have a point Issue.

Right now there is a young chap in Saudi Arabia who is about to be beheaded and crucified for organising some peaceful protests during the arab spring. There are of course some trumped up charges of murder he "confessed" during torture. Actually Saudi Arabia has one of the highest execution rates in the world - often on similar trumped up charges that is really about quashing dissent against a brutal and oppressive regime. Then of course there's the routine flogging, decapitating etc for so-called moral crimes like homosexuality, adultery and so forth.

You probably missed the howls of moral outrage at this "death cult" from our upstanding leaders. Thats because it never happened. The US showed its true colours when after 9/11 was carried out by 15 out of 19 Saudi nationals they responded by.... err invading Iraq, and giving free passage to bin-Laden's family out of the US.

The worst thing about our silence over the Saudi death cult, is that they aggressively export it outside their own borders - sending their jihadists into conflict zones like Syria, as well as bankrolling Islamic terrorists all over the world. Not directly by the government of course, but highly prominent and visible private players who could easily be stopped by the authorities if there was the will.

It may keep the peace, but I, an Infidel, call it cowardice. And so does Islam.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 4:58pm:

You do actually have a point Issue. Right now there is a young chap in Saudi Arabia who is about to be beheaded and crucified for organising some peaceful protests during the arab spring. There are of course some trumped up charges of murder he "confessed" during torture. Actually Saudi Arabia has one of the highest execution rates in the world - often on similar trumped up charges that is really about quashing dissent against a brutal and oppressive regime. Then of course there's the routine flogging, decapitating etc for so-called moral crimes like homosexuality, adultery and so forth. You probably missed the howls of moral outrage at this "death cult" from our upstanding leaders. Thats because it never happened. The US showed its true colours when after 9/11 was carried out by 15 out of 19 Saudi nationals they responded by.... err invading Iraq, and giving free passage to bin-Laden's family out of the US. The worst thing about our silence over the Saudi death cult, is that they aggressively export it outside their own borders - sending their jihadists into conflict zones like Syria, as well as bankrolling Islamic terrorists all over the world. Not directly by the government of course, but highly prominent and visible private players who could easily be stopped by the authorities if there was the will.

Hmm sounds like a little upset Sunni Muslim isn't to happy with Shia musseys in Saudi Arabia to me. Much like the Sunny ISIS aren't to rapped about the Shia Iraqi's or Shia Iranians.

Putin will sort yas out.

ordinaryguy wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:43pm:

Hmm sounds like a little upset Sunni Muslim isn't to happy with Shia musseys in Saudi Arabia to me

;D ;D Didn't really think that through did you Matty.

wow for once matty actually shut up

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2015 at 7:27am:

wow for once matty actually shut up

Now now, G, there's no need to offend. Matty does have rights, you know.

He likes being called Ordinary at the moment.