[Newsbot]

Title: Jewish rabbi is stabbed in Strasbourg by 'Muslim attacker'
Category: World
Posted By: martin14
Date: 2016-08-19 06:17:57

[martin14]

So, standard stuff.

Uses allahsnackbar, but;
No terrorism
Mental health issues
Lone attack
Drug issues

Blah blah blah yes they are counting on you being that stupid.

[stratos]

martin14 martin14:

So, standard stuff.

Uses allahsnackbar, but;
No terrorism
Mental health issues
Lone attack
Drug issues

Blah blah blah yes they are counting on you being that stupid.

That link to a LONG LIST of attacks for just this year alone disproves all those statements. The left clearly does not want facts to get in the way of their self hate and thus blame of the West for the attacks.

Are some conducted by Mental issue persons or drugs? Yes a few are. The MAJORITY are truly terrorism the act of terror can be done by one person or by a number of people. For me the key is if they are doing it in the name of their God. At least a vast majority of them are being done in the name of Islam, an Islamic group, or in the name of their god.

[GreenTiger]

Not suprising for the Religion of Peace.

[N_Fiddledog]

Just for fun, and speaking of "Terror" and "the religion of Peace," would you like to see an argument from Muslim apologists?

There's a quote from the koran:

~ Quran (8:12) ~ I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them ~

You can find the apologist explanation of that here:

http://www.islam101.com/terror/verse8_12.htm

Basically they call for an understanding of context. The idea is Mohammed was only giving battle instructions to instruct his followers on how to defend themselves at the Battle of Badr.

The idea is Badr was purely defensive.

But here's the Encyclopedia Britannica's explanation of the Battle of Badr.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Badr

Now I imagine the apologist would explain that battle differently, but those are the basic facts of the debate.

If you've ever seen this debate played out in real time though you'd see the next move is to say, "Yeah, but Christ said nasty violent stuff too. What about Matthew 10:34."

Very well. Here's the Christian apologist's explanation of Christ saying "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword."

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/ ... _10_34.htm

Again the apologist (in this case Christian) makes a call to "context," except here he tells us this passage comes from a bit where Christ is giving his marching orders to the disciples on how to go out and preach after he's gone. The claim is "the sword is metaphor." And there's another passage from the same period where Christ tells Peter to put his literal sword away, because if you live by the sword you'll die by the sword. And who doesn't know Christ often spoke in metaphor, so does it make sense that he was doing so here?

Read the whole thing if you like, but I would claim a false equivalency.