Is Islam a Religion
- Thread starter Protectionist
- Start date
- Status
Stop pretending. YOU WERE TOLD which one, YOU WERE TOLD who the speaker was (Osama bin Laden). And again, sources don't have to be links (even though you may treasure this little rule you conjured up one morning):giggle:
Rarely have I ever seen anything as assinine in a political forum, as defining this as not a credible source >>
Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, United States vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al
At this point, you might be about ready to hang up computer forum posting. I mean really.
Links provide Data other than opinion...and are indeed a required source in an online debate, much as source material is proclaimed clearly in books, papers, studies, and virtually anything short of original material.
By making the claims, it falls upon you to provide information that can be used to validate those claims, as others instead are left only with opinion.
Opinion can be used to begin debate, but does not compel one to accept it when only backed by further opinion....that is a sure way to lose a debate.
When the follow up to a request for further Data from an opponent is insult, the debate is officially over, and the individual resorting to such a "Tactic" has lost both the debate, and respect from those in the gallery.
I TOLD YOU where, Mr. Helpless. You Google it. You can find ANYTHING by Googling it, didn't you know ? Of course you did. So what's the matter ? You don't believe there really was a US vs Holy Land Foundation trial that sent 5 MB leaders to prison ? So everyone is the world knows about it, but you're going sit here and throw a tantrum because you didn't get direct link ? Well, it's public information, so if you really want to see it, you can do that (unless you'd really rather just be a crybaby here and pretend you have to be provided with a direct link). Sheeeeeeshhh!!
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/misc/20.pdf
First 15 pages are in Arabic (copy of the original). Next 17 page are in English. Now stop whining, and pretending you're not getting sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Land_Foundation_for_Relief_and_Development#cite_note-28
http://counterterrorismblog.org/upload/2007/12/nefaikhwan1007%5B1%5D.pdf
The point is so why should I have to google your point. When asked I provide link for my point of view on threads. I did not make you google crap did I?
Then you have the fact that google gives you how many results. So out of those millions of results how am I suppose to know where you got you info from. Now that is just plain common sense on the part of the person who is trying to make there point valid.
Hey you used Wiki how about that I though it was:
Last edited:
NO THEY ARE NOT A REQUIRED SOURCE (even though this rule of YOURS floats around in YOUR head). I've given thousands of sources to hundreds of posters in 7 different forums, for 7 years, and not a one of them ever complained that they needed a link. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE. I've also received thousands of non-link sources and never complained either. And hundreds of best-seller books are crammed with sources that have nothing to so with a computer. Stop talking stupid!
HA HA HA!! Why should you have to Google ? Well, you just sit right here on my knee little boy, and I'll tell you a story about how things were for many years before anyone ever heard of a computer.
You read a book, and it had footnotes in it. Little numbers at the end of sentences. And then you turn to the FOOTNOTE chapter in the back of that book, and you look up that chapter, and then the number at the end of the sentence you want to get a source for. ANd then the little number tells you the source. And not a single one of those sources had anything to do with a computer.
And you know what ? Books are still written that way now.
Oh no I been a member of other forums and all the forums I been on everyone likes you to provide links. Books are used yes but everyone I see that references a book provides the name of the book, the author, and the page they are referring too.
Though hey maybe the other four forums I am member of are all wrong and only you are right.
Why don't you ask chris "Was that REALLY....so hard" (for him to accept a perfectly good source given to him in Post # 113 of this thread ?
Interesting....
Thing is, you are deciding to participate in a forum that asks you to follow a few suggestions. You of course, can debate in any way you wish...but understand you will not be satisfied with the result.
Having a bit of experience in these forums as well, I have noted a far more respected opinion of myself by debating competently. The use of verifiable information in an argument goes much further than stomping your feet, holding your breath until blue, and calling your screen a ninnyhead.
Eventually, you become someone to be avoided due to seeming to be a very poor debate partner...or you get removed completely from discussion opportunities.
By the way...I am well aware of what a book is, have even read a few.....but unless you wish to wait a few days for me to find the book, read it, and then reply....you probably should provide the information yourself.
Last edited:
HA HA HA!! Why should you have to Google ? Well, you just sit right here on my knee little boy, and I'll tell you a story about how things were for many years before anyone ever heard of a computer.
You read a book, and it had footnotes in it. Little numbers at the end of sentences. And then you turn to the FOOTNOTE chapter in the back of that book, and you look up that chapter, and then the number at the end of the sentence you want to get a source for. ANd then the little number tells you the source. And not a single one of those sources had anything to do with a computer.
And you know what ? Books are still written that way now.
And those footnotes provide the book it is referring to and you can get that book and read that yes I am well aware of that.
Though Google again provides how many hits? So how am I to know where you got your source from? That source can be link to a hundred different views.
The source you got - a US JUSTICE DEPT courtroom trial Exhibit (numbered specifically) couldn't have been a better and more reliable source. You're a phony and a whiner, that all the problem is here. I've given that source to hundreds of posters. You're the ONLY ONE that ever bitched about it. As far as I'm concerned, your complaints are about as meaningful as a rock in the bottom of a pond.
I agree. ANd that's why I gave hin the MOST VERIFIABLE AND ACCURATE source you can get >> a US JUSTICE DEPT courtroom trial Exhibit (numbered specifically). So by stomping your feet, holding your breath until blue, and calling your screen a ninnyhead, instead of accepting a terrif source, he (AND YOU FOR STUPIDLY SUPPORTING HIM) become someone to be avoided due to seeming to be a very poor debate partner...or you get removed completely from discussion opportunities.
SOURCE written in RED.
"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all that the word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood in North America] must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands, and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated, and Allah's religion is made victorious over all religions."
Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, United States vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al.
ANd I book marked it so I can read it. I really don't care what you say personally. I bitched you did not provide a link so we could read the source not about the source itself. I said you did not provide links so get it straight my man.
STOP LYING !!! You know damn well the source we're talking about.
Mohamed Akram, "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America" May 22, 1991, Government Exhibit 003-0085, United States vs. Holy Land Foundation, et al.
And this is a source one can read. Not take the word of the poster.
http://www.globalpolitician.com/22667-islam
You have two choices at this point:
1) Lose the attitude, stop treating our membership disrespectfully, and be someone others wish to play with.
~OR~
2) Lose the ability to do so.
Necessity of providing a link is unheard of. Stop talking stupid. Thousands of sources are not links, and they are perfectly valid sources, as they were for hundreds of years before computers . A source doesn't become valid just because it's in a stupid computer. There are many sources that have never been in a computer, and they are some of the most valid sources ever produced. That hasn't been changed, just because you and a few other computer heads say so.
I am not talking stupid every political forum I am a member of the members like to see links they can read to back up your opinion. Again though you are right and I am wrong. So I will shuffle off to my corner with my stupid hat and pretend that all the other forum I belong to don't ask for the same thing.
- Status
Similar threads
