Sword, I owe you an apology

Submitted by Hind Samy (Egypt), Mar 20, 2006 at 21:14

I'm sorry for assuming you were Christian, my mistake, I thought you were for some reason.

You commented on my other assumption that you're a skinhead (which you didn't deny) I distinctly remember reading a post you wrote in which you seemed very pro-ethnic cleansing - but I can't find it - if it's as benign as you claim it is perhaps you would be so kind as to find if for me - at least so you can refute what I'm saying.

Moving along,

Submitted by Sword of Islam., Mar 17, 2006 at 23:37

"Given that Hitler was an advocate of 'ethnic cleansing' whereas my posting indicated that we need to take steps to avert the possibility of future 'Kosovo's' your comments look foolish at best. Given your inability to debate in concrete terms using facts it is quite clear that such disputes will never be resolved diplomatically given the fundamental differences in our definition of the word 'dialogue' hence the sentiments expressed".


Yet, you also say:
Submitted by Sword of Islam, Feb 7, 2006 at 20:42

"I would now like to take this opportunity to apologise to the people of the Balkans for allowing myself to have been fooled by the lies and propaganda of the Middle East. I am now convinced that the truth was the first casualty of war and that Milosevic simply had the misfortune to be the first European leader able to see the gathering storm."

Which is it Sword? Are you for or against ethnic cleansing - you contradict yourself. I was wrong to call you pro Hitler - you're also pro Milosevic!

(And you have the nerve to call me a hypocrite, shame on you)

Submitted by Sword of Islam, Mar 3, 2006 at 00:02

"I was frankly amazed at the patience of George W. Bush when I saw those images. He receives a lot of criticism but if I were in his shoes and watching those images I would have NUKED the countries in concern. Immediately. No discussion."

Well I'm glad (as I'm sure many people are), you're not in his shoes. (Seems like ehtnic cleansing to me - kill the people who don't agree with me sort of thing). Before you try to twist this to your own interest, you mentioned people were dancing in the streets after 9/11 - well, it's FREEDOM OF SPEECH SWORD, like it or not. Watch "Why we fight" by Eugene Jarecki to get a better idea of the Muslim world's response after 9/11. We sympathised with the United States - 9/11 was a very tragic event.

Submitted by Sword of Islam, Mar 11, 2006 at 13:24

"Diplomacy should always be the first port of call but it is quite clear that in a situation where one party is attempting to negotiate and the other, whether guided by ignorance or outright deceit, is only ever going to obfuscate then military action is the only intelligent course of action."

Not a surprising comment from someone who thinks anyone who believes in love and peace is a "failed middle aged hippy", which you didn't deny - you merely evaded my question with a question (something you've accused others of doing as a sign of stupidity) :


Submitted by Hind Samy, Mar 19, 2006 at 03:51
According to your way of thinking was (God forgive me for saying this) Jesus a middle-aged failed hippy too?!.

Your reply:
- Are you under the impression that a 33 year old is middle aged?

You say military action is the only way to go when people won't discuss, then according to you given my "inability to debate in concrete terms using facts it is quite clear that such disputes will never be resolved diplomatically given the fundamental differences in our definition of the word 'dialogue' " - you want to take military action against me? Maybe I should be nuked or ethnically cleansed?

You offer a link to an article in the Telegraph to support your never ending bickering on the forum:

Submitted by Sword of Islam, Mar 2, 2006 at 03:41

Perhaps you could also offer some illuminating insights into the peaceful ways of the Janjaweed in Darfur? I'm not sure that I am able to reconcile the picture of 'universal peace' that you profess to defend against a constant bombardment of hatred from the West. Perhaps you can explain the enlightened nature of the following article to me and point out a current Western equivalent to me?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/30/wdarf30.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/05/30/ixworld.html

P.S. I have plenty more where that came from but I can count the number of Muslims who are prepared to talk in anything other than cliches on the fingers of a one fingered man!

But then you claim that the BBC and the Telegraph are not reliable sources of information. What does that say about all your sources then? Obviously it is you who has been "lazy" in finding proper sources to back all your arguments.


Submitted by Sword of Islam, Feb 23, 2006 at 18:35

"Nice, and rare, to see someone who is willing to look deeper. One word of caution though, 'another one'; it was The Telegraph who misreported the Danish Queen's comments and The BBC who misreported much of the cartoon fiasco so make sure that you are dependent on neither of these sources alone! I say this with particular regret as I'm from the UK and these two institutions have done a great deal to undermine the good reputations that they once had - and all out of laziness and an inability to double-check the facts! It's a great pity.


To top it all you offer education on Islam to those interested from an Atheist website:

submitted by Sword of Islam, Feb 28, 2006 at 19:24

For any passing readers who may be interested there is some useful info here:
http://atheism.about.com/od/islamicsects/

Surely anyone genuinely interersted in learning about a religion will find more accurate sources? At least sources that were written by people who actually practice that religion?.

You accuse others of racism - what are you? All you've done on this forum is name call Muslims and spew utter rubbish and hate about Islam - isn't that bigotry? Trust me, you'd gain more credibility in your debates if you didn't stoop to insults & religion bashing.

Funny that when I offered a definition to the word "Flamer" you were the one who commented on it - we have a saying in Arabic which goes along the lines of "he who has a bump on his head always touches it" - meaning when something applies to someone, they instinctively will be aware of it. You made fun of Libyan because he made a few mistakes in English - well, considering you're an Englishman and never heard of the word "flamer" and English is not my first language, I doubt you're in a place to make fun of others. - Of course you'll deny being one - does a mad man know he's mad?

In conclusion, I have to say - all through your posts all I have seen you do is call people who don't agree with you names - you called me a "Mullah of Misinformation" , a "Hindu", "Hindu Sammy" (that says a lot about your spelling skills and intelligence ), a liar and a hypocrite, ignorant (imagine that, coming from you, that's rich!), "Ayatollah of the ignorant", surely you must know that resorting to name calling is the weakest form of debate (you who lectured me on the definition of debate - funny isn't it?)

Time and time again you have said on and on and on that we're all stupid - what does that say about you - you who spend so much of your time debating with stupid people (according to you) ?

As for hinting that Libyan and I are the same person, just because you seem to have an imaginary friend (fan, personal one man fan club) here on the forum, doesn't mean normal people resort to that kind of behaviour.

Sorry to everyone that this post was so long, but using more than one post to reply to people like "Sowrd of Islam" seems to me to be a waste of posts.

Good day everyone.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".