clearly a propagandist!

Submitted by Noah Wilk (United States), Jan 28, 2007 at 07:41

Mo wrote:

"Susan, people like Michael see the world through better lenses than people like you, their assessments and course of actions are feasible and realistic."

Of course you'd favor Michel and his approach, Mo. It's because he's foolish enough to believe there is hope for peace between Islam and civilization, which plays right into your hands. People like me and Susan are too smart to be fooled by such nonsense.

"With this in mind, some men can get confrontational when a situation arrives where a man sees what should be strictly concealed. Now it is not the fault of Islam that the gynaecologist was assaulted, rather it the fault of the man for allowing a male to proceed as the gynaecologist."

Well there's a typical Islamic sexist remark that excuses the reprehensible behavior of Muslims!

"You talk about Muslims persecuting Christians, is that something Muslims should be doing? I don't think so, if it is true that Muslims are persecuting Christians then they are merely acting out the anger and it is wrong."

"Merely acting out the anger"? You call genocide "merely acting out anger"? No, Mo. Acting out anger is a kid throwing a temper tantrum because he cannot have a toy he wants. Genocide, rape, mutilation and mass murder are psychotic disturbances committed by savage, barbaric monsters, not "acting out anger". There is nothing "merely" about it.

And what is this nonsense about "if it is true that Muslims are persecuting Christians"? Ask the Christians in Jerusalem. Ask the Christians in Sudan. Ask the Christians everywhere Islam shows its face. You can't even be a practicing Christian or own a Bible in many Muslim countries. Unlike Michel, who is in denial of reality, you Mo are nothing but a lying propagandist, which is even worse.

"But I don't see how this is somehow related to Islam, because Islam does not promote this type of behaviour (and I know you'll try to prove me wrong, with your evidence from the Quran and Hadith)."

You don't see how this is related to Islam? What, do you think we're stupid? Is is the Bible that the terrorists are reading when they chop off the heads of innocent people? Is it Dr. Seuss Green Eggs and Ham that the ayatollahs and the immams and President Amadmanjihad are reading and using as justification to "wipe Israel off the map"? Is it the Vedas that were used to justify flying airplanes into skyscrapers, killing thousands of innocent people? Is it the Tripitaka (Buddhist holy book) that the Muslim clerics used to approve a fatwa of nuclear attack on the United States or to justify the genocide of Christians in Sudan?

No. In each case, it was the Koran, it was Islam that was the justifiction, as it is the justification for more than 90% of all wars and all terrorism taking place in the world today.

"A question to you, do you recognise the many killings and persecution of the Muslims in western countries by your fellow Christian cousins?"

Really? Show us where this is taking place. You're delusional. Scratch that. You're a Muslim propagandist.

"You seem to identify a few black sheep from the Muslim quarter; do you at all identify your own, or is this just a way thing?"

"Just a few black sheep"? That's why 88% of Jordanians polled believed in violence against civilians?

Michel, this is the guy you praise for being moderate and for engaging in honest and productive debate?.... Case closed. Michel... There's no point in discussing it with you, because this is a perfect example of you wanting to believe in the myth of moderate Muslims so badly that you cannot even see a radical Muslim apologist even as he's patting you on the back.

And as for Mo, there's nothing else to say to him. He's a propagandist, pure and simple.

---

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".