Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Who can it be now ? - Yusuf Qaradawi has it all figured out


It's pretty easy to condemn a terrorist attack when you blame others for it.

But just who might those others be?

Well, our friends, the moderate Muslims, think they know who was really behind the suicide bombing against an Egyptian church this past week that resulted in 21 deaths:

Lebanese Shi'ite cleric, Sheikh Abdel Amir Kabalan, has come out to denounce the attack, saying "This terrorist act bears the fingerprints of Zionists who keep on targeting religious sights [sic] and are working to ... sow discord between Muslims and Christians,"

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Pope+l ... story.html

An Iranian TV channel has arrived to the same conclusion; Mossad was behind the attack because Muslims could never carry out acts of violence, dontchya know?

The fresh plot by terrorists to target churches is an organized Zionist scenario aimed at creating a rift between Muslims and Christians.

Following its intelligence and security failures in Egypt and the apprehension of a number of Mossad agents by Egyptian intelligence apparatus, the Zionist regime of Israel is set to exact vengeance on the Egyptian nation.

For years, Israel and the United States have resorted to radical groups with no affiliation to divine faiths to carry out acts of terror against Christians in Islamic countries.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/158351.html

And last, but certainly not least, 'moderate' Egyptian scholar, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, has figured it out. The church bombing must have been carried out by a 'foreign hand'.

Though, to his credit, he didn't explicitly say the church bombing was carried out by Zionists. But he does make it pretty clear that no Muslim was involved.

http://www.ikhwanweb.com/article.php?id=27726

If Muslim spokespersons keep this up, soon they'll all be identified as Muslim moderates by the likes of John Esposito and other opinion elites.

For whom is the term moderates used? What are they supposed to stand for? Often I hear they condemn terrorism, condemn the killing innocent civilians and are peace-loving. I am sure there are many. However, when scratching off the surface I more than often notice that terrorism, innocent, civilian and peace can mean very different (even opposite) things. Condemning terrorism, killing of innocent civilians and saying to be peace-loving doesn't mean a thing.

For me sharia is not moderate for example, so everybody supported sharia, including lashes for the fornicators and adulterers and condoning of wife-beating, is an extremist.

Often self-proclaimed moderates are actually fanatics in a suit. Why would anybody call themselves or others moderate anyways?

Take this for example. A "moderate" wouldn't blame Zionists for everything, wouldn't try to make excuses for the bombing (like giving the reason that two converted Copt women to Islam are missing). A "moderate" wouldn't compare Israel to the nazi's, a "moderate" wouldn't be jubelent about a mother who wants her son to blow himself up in Jerusalem, a "moderate" wouldn't say killing a pregant Jewish woman serves anything. Thats talk from extreme fanatics.

I'm surprised you've picked up clerics who are questioning who was behind the terrorist acts - the first person who came out to express these doubts was the President, Hosni Mubarak - and indeed looks to be the 'official' line of the Egyptian authorities:

President Hosni Mubarak has urged Egypt's Muslims and Christians to stand united against terrorism after a bombing outside a church in Alexandria.
..
In a rare televised address, Mr Mubarak said it bore the hallmark of "foreign hands" seeking to destabilise Egypt.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12103248
Then again, I guess choosing clerics who are repeating the Government line suits your purposes of demonising Islam the better, I guess!



I don't use the term moderate myself when describing the majority of Muslims who follow the clear teachings of the Quran which categorically states that terrorism (for whatever motive) is a sin and against Islam.

I just call them Muslims.

The Muslim terrorists are, I have pointed out ad nauseum, are to Islam what Baruch Goldstein and Eric Rudolph are to Judaism and Christianity respectively - i.e. people who misuse or misinterpret their religion to justify a sin and a crime.

Those who venerate Goldstein or justify Rudolph's killings may be labelled 'extremists' but then by the same token the Jews and Christians who are ed by their killings could also be labelled 'moderate'.

It is far easier to identify the extremists - FD has a point. Indeed, on this forum it is clearly easy to distinguish those extremist religious fanatics from the rest of us. We normal (dare I say 'moderate') posters will denounce any and every form of terrorism and terrorist act. Those who are extremist religious fanatics (and indeed non-religious fanatics/extremists) will find a way to condone or excuse acts of terrorism.

Indeed, the only person who has refused to condemn clear acts of terrorism and war crimes that were carried out by people using religion as their excuse is event horizon:
philosophy-dubai/most-extreme-religous-fanatic-here-t41961.html

I would not call FD an extremist fanatic - but, to me, he does come close when he looks for reasons to excuse the killings of non-Jews by the Israeli military, and when he has sympathy for a clear war crime committed by the IDF:

Flying Dutchman wrote:Those killed by the IDF in self-defense I wouldnt call crimes. And a lot of Arabs killed by the IDF was/is self-defense.

And
dubai-politics-talk/palestinian-arabs-killed-t44672-30.html#p360103


But it is extremely sad that these are the guys who will point fingers at others and make up slurs. No one here has made up any excuse for terrorist acts - giving the reasons for the crimes is not an excuse, it is stating the reason why the crimes were committed, not excusing the crimes or even denying they were crimes. They know the difference, but yet can't resist ad hominem attacks - such is their hatred of Muslims.

Indeed, the hallmark of recent discussions has been a denial or minimising of crimes committed by non-Muslims. A Terrorist suicide bombing by a plane in 2010 by Joe Stack in Florida has been argued as NOT a terrorist act!! Bombings by separatists in ETA which killed many, and aimed to kill many more are trivialised as dustbin bombs.

I think they are trying to provoke reactions that will mirror their hatred of Muslims to justify to themselves their feelings of frustration and inadequacy. Sad.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shaf, you can't win. If a Muslim says that he or she condemns a terrorist attack, the trolls will insist that it is not his or her true feelings - after all, doesn't the Quran say to kill all non-believers!

Al shafique you call a lot of things out of terrorism, why dont you start giving your definition of terrorism?
To meet the qualification of terrorism an action needs to be
political in aim and motives
violent aimed at mass killings
designed to have far reaching psychological repercussions
conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or cell structure
The perp is part of a subnational group ideology or religion

Joe stack attack met only 2 criteria, the first 2, it is for this reason that it was not qualified as a terrorist act, but criminal act, same as the depressive fired employee who walked in a fast food and gun down people.
Muslim attacks meet ALL these criteria.
You never condemn terrorist attacks from your brothers, because according to you , either they have good reasons , or you call them NOT terrorists.
Then you flood DF with words and semantic that no one beleive anyways and forgetting the facts. Mixing what s koranic and what s not, who cares if they interpret wrong or right, those who kill their daughters , thse who sever hands ans spinal cords, those who stone women, those who perform fem mutil ARE ALL muslims

kanelli wrote:Shaf, you can't win. If a Muslim says that he or she condemns a terrorist attack, the trolls will insist that it is not his or her true feelings - after all, doesn't the Quran say to kill all non-believers!

Yes kanelli. It's 'Islamophobic' to criticize Muslims who blame non-Muslims (Jews/Zionists) for attacks Muslims clearly carried out.

After all, they condemned the attack. Isn't that enough? What else do non-Muslims want - equal rights or something?

herve wrote:Al shafique you call a lot of things out of terrorism, why dont you start giving your definition of terrorism?

Sure thing.

I use this definition:
Terrorism is the deliberate, negligent, or reckless use of force against noncombatants, by state or nonstate actors for ideological ends and in the absence of a substantively just legal process.

Joe Stack was a suicide terrorist who flew a plane into a civilian building and was lucky to not have killed people (he injured a fews). His motivations were ideological (anti-Government) and he used reckless force against non-combatants. Ergo, terrorist.

QED

I therefore submit that I and others condemn the widest definitions of terrorism possible, whilst others find excuses for acts of terrorism (at best) and condone them (at worst). Indeed, those denying that Stack was a terrorist just because he wasn't a Muslim makes a very strong point indeed.

Cheers,
Shafique

[Edit: An anti-terrorism conference in 2008 gave this definition - which has some merits (but isn't as comprehensive as the one I use above:
Anti-Terrorism Conference: Any action that targets innocents, whether by an individual or by any government and its agencies or by a private organisation anywhere in the world constitutes, according to Islam, an act of terrorism.]

Al shafique No wonder why your stats are flawed, according to your definition, a demonstration of French farmers throwing manure at passers by, lawenforcements and Government employees, are terrorists.
Don't worry, outside your forum, authorities apply another definition to find and eliminate quietely the real terrorists before they strike and without breaking the news. It s by applying those rules that no Islamic terrorist attack was succesfull on commercial passenger planes since 911. What s left are the inept ones like shoe bomber, underwear bombers, whatever bombers, and they have all one thing in common, they chant the same Alahu akbar before lighting the matches. Does not that bother you to share the same religion with those thugs?

Why do you insist that Europol stats are 'my stats'?

I'm not a European Police official and I didn't compile the reports - they did and they define what terrorist acts go into the statistics. You can check for yourself whether manure spreading protestors are classified as terrorists (they aren't by my definition).

My definition is used for what acts of terrorism I condemn - and I condemn them all.

Again, let's be clear - the extremists in this thread are those who refuse to condemn or those who condone acts of terrorism, as well as those that refuse to acknowledge acts of terrorism. They are not those who condemn all acts of terrorism.

I'm in the group that condemns all acts of terrorism. I thank you for the opportunity to reaffirm this fact.

As for asking whether I'm bothered that some Muslims commit crimes - of course I'm bothered when anyone commits any crime. Do you think it bothers Catholics that the provisional IRA blows up people?

Cheers,
Shafique

Again you are wrong, you deceit again and again. everybody on this forum condemns terrorists attacks as well as criminal attacks. What you should say is that people make a difference between terrorist and criminal attacks.
you don't because this way you can dilute terrorist attacks of islmaist origin with the criminal attacks and make it look like Islamists are just a minor hitching. when it is in fact the most lethal threat in this world.
What you say is just words, in case of a Mulsim uprising in the UK, what side would you take? It is typical for people like you to say something and do the exact opposit, you can try to convince somebodyelse , it s not going to work with me, i have seen people like you at work in Dubai and throughout the middle east.
You want to try a poll? ok at random
who trust Germans?
Who trust Muslims
99 vs 1, or the other way around?

Flying Dutchman wrote:For whom is the term moderates used? What are they supposed to stand for? Often I hear they condemn terrorism, condemn the killing innocent civilians and are peace-loving. I am sure there are many. However, when scratching off the surface I more than often notice that terrorism, innocent, civilian and peace can mean very different (even opposite) things. Condemning terrorism, killing of innocent civilians and saying to be peace-loving doesn't mean a thing.

For me sharia is not moderate for example, so everybody supported sharia, including lashes for the fornicators and adulterers and condoning of wife-beating, is an extremist.

Often self-proclaimed moderates are actually fanatics in a suit. Why would anybody call themselves or others moderate anyways?

Take this for example. A "moderate" wouldn't blame Zionists for everything, wouldn't try to make excuses for the bombing (like giving the reason that two converted Copt women to Islam are missing). A "moderate" wouldn't compare Israel to the nazi's, a "moderate" wouldn't be jubelent about a mother who wants her son to blow himself up in Jerusalem, a "moderate" wouldn't say killing a pregant Jewish woman serves anything. Thats talk from extreme fanatics.

Great points FD, I totally agree. Sharia itself is not moderate!

kanelli wrote:Shaf, you can't win. If a Muslim says that he or she condemns a terrorist attack, the trolls will insist that it is not his or her true feelings - after all, doesn't the Quran say to kill all non-believers!

K,as a "moderate' member of the forums I dont think you should not use the term "troll" to call other members.

I don't use the term moderate myself when describing the majority of Muslims who follow the clear teachings of the Quran which categorically states that terrorism (for whatever motive) is a sin and against Islam.

Please bring me the exact verse of Quran supporting your statement.

herve wrote: everybody on this forum condemns terrorists attacks as well as criminal attacks.

Nope. Fail.

I've given links to posts from the only people in this thread who refuse to condemn all forms of terrorism.

herve wrote: What you should say is that people make a difference between terrorist and criminal attacks.

No. eh justifies a war crime and refuses to condemn Baruch Goldsteins religously motivated terrorism. FD sympathises with another war crime. This is not a labelling issue as it is with y ou.

herve wrote:What you say is just words, in case of a Mulsim uprising in the UK, what side would you take? It is typical for people like you to say something and do the exact opposit, you can try to convince somebodyelse , it s not going to work with me, i have seen people like you at work in Dubai and throughout the middle east.

Did you enjoy the rant?

I would take the side of justice and law and order - and oppose the Muslims breaking the law and attacking fellow Brits. Every time.

I've debated Al Muhajiroon head on and shown them why they are wrong - facts, not a blind prejudice Herve.

I prefer facts and evidence over polls of people's perceptions. I'm surprised you haven't registered this yet.

Mel: The religion forum has a number of threads on Islam and terrorism - let me know what confuses you in those threads. This one includes Quranic verses you requested:
philosophy-dubai/islam-and-terrorism-t39719.html#p320538


Cheers,
Shafique

Thanks for the advice melika, but I call it as I see it. eh is an Islamophobe troll.

^^^ok, it's your choice. But IMO if everyone is going to call others in the way they see them, the place will turn into a zoo!

Funny how my use of the word troll is more controversial that the huge volume of anti-Muslim threads by eh.

kanelli wrote:Thanks for the advice melika, but I call it as I see it. eh is an Islamophobe troll.

kanelli wrote:Funny how my use of the word troll is more controversial that the huge volume of anti-Muslim threads by eh.

Lets not focus on event horizon in this thread. I suggest if you desire to discuss event horizons post behaviour to open a new thread about it!

It's pretty easy to condemn a terrorist attack when you blame others for it.
But just who might those others be?

Well, our friends, the moderate Muslims, think they know who was really behind the suicide bombing against an Egyptian church this past week that resulted in 21 deaths:

Lebanese Shi'ite cleric, Sheikh Abdel Amir Kabalan, has come out to denounce the attack, saying "This terrorist act bears the fingerprints of Zionists who keep on targeting religious sights [sic] and are working to ... sow discord between Muslims and Christians,"

On the frontlines, the executers could be belied muslims but What makes you stay so sure that it’s only the blame but not the truth behind this smoke screen?

Surely, you must be reading recent spy/intelligence wars between Israel, Egypt and Sudan...

Did you know that israel pays as much as $1.5 million per spy to retrieve information so as to achieve whatever pleases its interests.. i.e identify and bomb sites... A terrible one was done on 6th september 2007 through violating Turkish flight zone..
http://en.trend.az/regions/met/arabicr/1805232.html

What also makes you believe that israel will not do similar things to stir up christian emotions anywhere/anytime he wishes, especially at a time when christian south sudan is to vote on referandum to split from Sudan (muslim north sudan).

I wrote many times that israel behaves both independent and as a satelite state for western world interests..

The events ramped up when israel, Russia and south Sudanese government had a secret meeting in Tel Aviv on 16th December..
South sudan is rich in oil/ energy sources, Israel is already based there and got hold of the south sudanese economy, the area is more like a pilot region for him to enforce its power on North sudan and Egypt by controlling river nile(water source)and by encompassing both sudan and Egypt through military force and alliance..
It is said that the first nation which will recognise south sudan will be israel...

Unfortunatley since muslim nations are colonised and politically weak due to treaties/peace accords made with colonisers, we don’t read the real stories behind many events...Only few freak mooslims attempt to shed some light on the developing stories...
http://www.khilafah.com/index.php/analy ... hern-sudan

.

-- Tue Jan 04, 2011 7:25 pm --

Oh I forgot to add...

I only wish that the citizens of both christian south and the muslim north knew why so many people have to clash and die for such dirty ambitions..

Some more condemnations from Lebanon:

The Lebanese Popular Congress opined that "the wicked terrorist bombing which targeted Christian worshipers in the Churches of Saints George and Peter in Alexandria coincides with the suffering of Christians in Iraq and Palestine from crimes and displacement under the American and Zionist occupations, which share the same goal: to bring about Islamic-Christian and Islamic-Islamic sectarian fighting. This furthers a plot to divide the Arab world into rival sectarian and ethnic countries, to strike at Pan-Arab unity on one hand, and also to justify the Jewishness of the Zionist entity, and make it the only power in all the region."

According to a report issued by the Congress, it stated that "What happened in Egypt, and what is happening in Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, and Lebanon, and what will happen in other Arab-Islamic countries, is all occurring within the framework of this hellish plot, whose components were carefully crafted in the Zionist-American Greater Middle East project. No one imagines that the success of the colonialists in stripping southern Sudan from the north, or in sowing Sunni-Shi'a fitna in Lebanon, or in dividing Iraq and Yemen, will result in (anything) good for the Arab inhabitants of the region, whether Muslim or Christian.

Murad: The Alexandria Church Bombing Was a Zionist-Western Attempt to Target the National Fabric of Egypt

alintiqad.com, 2 Jan 2010

The president of the Unity Party, former minister 'Abd-al-Rahim Murad, condemned the attack on the Coptic Church in Alexandria, stressing that it is "clear evidence of Zionist-Western attempts to target the national fabric of Egypt, and the unity of the sons of this ancient Arab country, which has long enriched us with its national solidarity, and its ability to overcome foreign attempts to sow sedition and division."

And one from Egypt:

Cairo, 3 Jan. (AKI) - US and Israeli intelligence were behind the deadly bombing of a church in the northern Egyptian city of Alexandria early on Saturday, an Egyptian cleric kidnapped by CIA and Italian secret service agents in the northern Italian city of Milan in 2003, told Adnkronos International (AKI).

"Israel's Mossad and the CIA are behind the attack in Alexandria," Osama Hasan Mustafa Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, told AKI.

Al Shafique biased opinion brushing off Muslim attacks on Christians blasted in the news, today the US officially raised concerns on the trend of Christian attacks by muslims.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110104/pl ... nsunrestus

How does me condemning ALL terrorist attacks (and herve denying terrorist attacks) equate to me 'brushing off Muslim attacks' ?

Has someone been posting in my name?

Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman wrote:

kanelli wrote:Thanks for the advice melika, but I call it as I see it. eh is an Islamophobe troll.

kanelli wrote:Funny how my use of the word troll is more controversial that the huge volume of anti-Muslim threads by eh.

Lets not focus on event horizon in this thread. I suggest if you desire to discuss event horizons post behaviour to open a new thread about it!

Nah, the easier solution was to put him on my foe list and I simply don't see his posts anymore.

We live in a damn wierd world. Bush & Blair pushed the world to a false war that resulted in a horrible tragedy and chaos in the Middle East! They declared war based on LIES! Everyone knew it since day one and all nations protested to stop that war, yet no one is chasing them for execution, WHY? Are we living in a jungle? Strong one rules??

A simple "sorry" was enough to save them!! Where as, others's apologies were useless, they eventually were hunt down and executed!

As much as I hate Saddam, bin laden, and the current regime of Iran, but the fact remains they were/are Western puppets and were backboned continuously by the West!

Accusing Hamas of being terrorists? What about Hagana? (the Jewish terrorist gangs that used to bomb Palestineans who were against the forced/arranged Jewish settlements that were created under the protection of the UK, which was filled up with Jews coming from everywhere from the West, and their purpose was to establish an alien country for their own on the land of Palestineans).
Apparently no one chased them or attacked them like how Israel is now doing to Gaza!!
Who is setting the rules here?? The West?? Why?? Simply, because it serves their interests!

The West has very wicked "double-standard" politics. What makes it different than Saddam when he forced the Arabization of Kurdistan in Northern Iraq?? Eventually, no UK politician was sent to court to be judged, but Saddam not only judged, but EXECUTED for many accusation that are equal to the crimes of MANY Westerns.

All prophets of Beni Israel, INCLUDING JESUS was ONLY sent to the Children of Israel (12 tribes of Yaacob). Romans, Khazars/Ashkanazis, Slavs, Russians, Greeks etc are completely different nations. Each one of them -after adopting the Abrahamic religions- they designed their own version of Christianity and Jeudaisum which resulted in horrible mutation.

Europe does NOT belong to Christianity anyways!
Urshalem/Yerushalem/Ursalem is the name and NOT "Jerusalem" which is Latinized. The Abrahamic religions (except for Islam) are fully semite-based, and all were aligned for/with Semitsm in all its aspects, which Westerns don't belong to, but when Romans adopted Christianity, within time the bible and prayers were translated/recited into Latin instead of Aramaic, and the Vatican was created as a holy land having more value than Urshalem! Maryam did not give birth to Yesu in Winter, it was in Summer yet Romans decided to change it to Winter to suit them. There is a long list to mention regarding the mutations caused to religions from the Westerns. Its weird they speak on behalf of Christianity and judging/accusing others with brutality when they themselves abused religion to their own purposes in the most brutal way that history ever witnessed!

Bottom line: The problem is that the West is intruding in the East in all aspects (culture, religion, land, etc), and enforcing their political plans that will only serve their interest on the short & long term. The Western politics will always remain an enemy to the Easterns, and if you believe some Easterns are buying your crap, then there are also plenty of Westerns who are buying the Eastern crap, this is a balanced equation anyways when two parties clashes. However, the West has no right to judge nor accuse anyone for anything. They need to wash their own asses before they urge others to do so.

Remark: WHEN I SAY THE WEST, I REFER TO THE POLITICIANS AND NOT NATIONS!

My post is not very organized - a bit random- but I'm sure message is clear to those two garbage bags "EH" and "FD".

Two garbage bags...........LOL

symmetric wrote:We live in a damn wierd world. Bush & Blair pushed the world to a false war that resulted in a horrible tragedy and chaos in the Middle East! They declared war based on LIES! Everyone knew it since day one and all nations protested to stop that war, yet no one is chasing them for execution, WHY? Are we living in a jungle? Strong one rules??

A simple "sorry" was enough to save them!! Where as, others's apologies were useless, they eventually were hunt down and executed!

As much as I hate Saddam, bin laden, and the current regime of Iran, but the fact remains they were/are Western puppets and were backboned continuously by the West!

Accusing Hamas of being terrorists? What about Hagana? (the Jewish terrorist gangs that used to bomb Palestineans who were against the forced/arranged Jewish settlements that were created under the protection of the UK, which was filled up with Jews coming from everywhere from the West, and their purpose was to establish an alien country for their own on the land of Palestineans).
Apparently no one chased them or attacked them like how Israel is now doing to Gaza!!
Who is setting the rules here?? The West?? Why?? Simply, because it serves their interests!

The West has very wicked "double-standard" politics. What makes it different than Saddam when he forced the Arabization of Kurdistan in Northern Iraq?? Eventually, no UK politician was sent to court to be judged, but Saddam not only judged, but EXECUTED for many accusation that are equal to the crimes of MANY Westerns.

All prophets of Beni Israel, INCLUDING JESUS was ONLY sent to the Children of Israel (12 tribes of Yaacob). Romans, Khazars/Ashkanazis, Slavs, Russians, Greeks etc are completely different nations. Each one of them -after adopting the Abrahamic religions- they designed their own version of Christianity and Jeudaisum which resulted in horrible mutation.

Europe does NOT belong to Christianity anyways!
Urshalem/Yerushalem/Ursalem is the name and NOT "Jerusalem" which is Latinized. The Abrahamic religions (except for Islam) are fully semite-based, and all were aligned for/with Semitsm in all its aspects, which Westerns don't belong to, but when Romans adopted Christianity, within time the bible and prayers were translated/recited into Latin instead of Aramaic, and the Vatican was created as a holy land having more value than Urshalem! Maryam did not give birth to Yesu in Winter, it was in Summer yet Romans decided to change it to Winter to suit them. There is a long list to mention regarding the mutations caused to religions from the Westerns. Its weird they speak on behalf of Christianity and judging/accusing others with brutality when they themselves abused religion to their own purposes in the most brutal way that history ever witnessed!

Bottom line: The problem is that the West is intruding in the East in all aspects (culture, religion, land, etc), and enforcing their political plans that will only serve their interest on the short & long term. The Western politics will always remain an enemy to the Easterns, and if you believe some Easterns are buying your crap, then there are also plenty of Westerns who are buying the Eastern crap, this is a balanced equation anyways when two parties clashes. However, the West has no right to judge nor accuse anyone for anything. They need to wash their own asses before they urge others to do so.

Remark: WHEN I SAY THE WEST, I REFER TO THE POLITICIANS AND NOT NATIONS!

My post is not very organized - a bit random- but I'm sure message is clear to those two garbage bags "EH" and "FD".

What does this have to do with the bombing in Egypt? Its just random foaming uncomprehensible texts.

Its not related to the thread.
I'm sharing my thoughts in response to yours randomly, instead of starting a new thread.

It's not any foaming, if you insist on intruding into others issues with your ignorance, without wanting to understand how they think, then your just an annouing bug.

Your hatred towards the Muslim word reflects your severe inferiority.