Quote:


Since you failed to conclusively show that Muslims have a bad position on this, Muslims are not bringing it up to justify anything.

I don't support murdering civilians, I find it grossly detestable, and that's why I can't fathom how you could allow people to openly celebrate it on your forum, whilst from the other side of your mouth demanding Muslims 'rein in their extremists' or accusing us of supporting terrorism, it's just laughable.

If a Muslim came into this Islamic forum, and said they're jubilant that civilians had been murdered, they'd be banned, simple. Yet here you are calling into question the resolve of Muslims to oppose such despicable positions, when you yourself are quite happy to leave it to flourish and fester under your own watch....

I would say that most muslims dont believe the best way to go about their agenda is killing "innocent" people. but on the same note most muslims imo would find it hard to condemn people who are fighting the "right" enemy just not in the most desirable way.

Yes that's the problem pender. They fail to stop the evil.

Since you failed to conclusively show that Muslims have a bad position on this, Muslims are not bringing it up to justify anything

Well I think your position is pretty bad. Obviously you don't.

I don't support murdering civilians, I find it grossly detestable, and that's why I can't fathom how you could allow people to openly celebrate it on your forum

It wasn't murder. It was accidental. I allow it because I believe in freedom of speech. You say you don't support it, but you also say you don't oppose it, and you don't expect other Muslims to lift a finger to oppose it. Does this make you indifferent? Does it make you a hypocrit, given that you also claim that 'opposition of the heart' only is pretty pissweak, and that opposition with the hand must come first.

whilst from the other side of your mouth demanding Muslims 'rein in their extremists' or accusing us of supporting terrorism, it's just laughable.

The moment he is suspected of doing or plotting real harm, he would be reigned in. We draw a clear line in the sand, and we enforce it. We don't draw an ambiguous line and turn a blind eye when 'our fellows' step over it.

If a Muslim came into this Islamic forum, and said they're jubilant that civilians had been murdered, they'd be banned, simple.

No they wouldn't. In fact it would be refreshing to find a Muslim who was honest about his feelings.

Yet here you are calling into question the resolve of Muslims to oppose such despicable positions

Calling it into question? Have you changed your mind now? Before you openly admitted there was no such resolve - only lip service. In fact you appear to place for more importance on what people say than what they do.

YOu are a liar FD...you don't believe in free speech.

So you claim to know what I believe better than I do?

You hide behind freedom of speech to allow for the abuse and insult of muslims

I am not hiding anything. I am openly admitting what my values are and what the rules are. I am not deflecting questions about the rules with complaints about the unrelated behaviour of total strangers.

yet when I abuse others in response...you play the free speech card.

I think you got yourself a bit mixed up there. If you are complaining about the rules, I have made them very clear. you seem to confuse your rejection of the rules with a double standard in how they are enforced.

This deflection game is getting more and more absurd. Basically I can't get a straight answer from Muslims about terrorism because they insist on whinging about people being mean instead.

Perhaps you would like to compile a list of demands that would have to be met before you would consider it reasonable to expect Muslims to reign in extremists? Maybe if the whole world stopped saying they don't like Islam the Muslims would stop killing people?

Quote:


pttt...  dummyspit.
taking his bat and ball home it would seem.

nothing childish in that.   

I think I've figured it out - Abu thinks that reigning in of Muslim terrorists should be the last step in the peace process because when he says peace, he means Islam conquering the world and achieving that special 'Islamic peace'. Until then the terrorists are useful, but once Islam has conquered the world you need to reign them in because terrorism is wrong.

Quote:


Depends what you mean by terrorists. In all our discussions so far we've failed to agree on what terrorism actually is, and who's a terrorist. Many terrorists, in my opinion are actually employed by states..

F/D - of course Abu can change meanings to suit himself. he has done it before.
he can also delete posts arbitrarily, support public stonings, move threads that don't suit him, deflect questions, support terrorists, ask rhetorical ones, threaten other posters and refuse to answer.


see, he's a superior deceiving arrogant muslim.
Changing meanings is EASY for him.

Oops,  afghanistan and pakistan are responsible for allowing the taliban extremists to flourish.

Now they have murdered Bhutto (is that terrorism?) and are moving into towns in Pakistan.