Dias Kadyrbayev, The Boston bomber's friend is MUSLIM and the media doesn't want you to know that!


Did they omit his favorite color and the name of his first girlfriend, too?

Who gives a shit what religion he is? Its only relevant to bigots.
The religion is why he did what he did. The religion commands him to kill infidels. That makes it relevant.

Such a simple and true reality; and yet libtards have a butt load of bold faced denial; and in poser's case some bold faced denial topped off with copious mind numbing fallacy allegations.

And that poster, when challenged to back it up, left the thread and forfeited the unwinnable point.
You on the other hand had that question posed on page 1, post 6, and have posted -- what, 20, 30 times since then, and have yet to answer. And you're still here.

Just as you never answered the same question last week.

And considering your track record on stupidity, will probably be ducking again next week. Presumably expecting different results.
 

Did they omit his favorite color and the name of his first girlfriend, too?

Who gives a shit what religion he is? Its only relevant to bigots.
The religion is why he did what he did. The religion commands him to kill infidels. That makes it relevant.

Such a simple and true reality; and yet libtards have a butt load of bold faced denial; and in poser's case some bold faced denial topped off with copious mind numbing fallacy allegations.
You've provided no objective, documented evidence whatsoever from any Islamic authority that Islam 'condones' terrorism; you provided no evidence whatsoever that there is consensus among all 1.6 billion Muslims in the world that their religion 'authorizes' terrorism.

Absent such 'evidence' your 'argument' fails as a fallacy.
 

Did they omit his favorite color and the name of his first girlfriend, too?

Who gives a shit what religion he is? Its only relevant to bigots.
The religion is why he did what he did. The religion commands him to kill infidels. That makes it relevant.

Such a simple and true reality; and yet libtards have a butt load of bold faced denial; and in poser's case some bold faced denial topped off with copious mind numbing fallacy allegations.
You've provided no objective, documented evidence whatsoever from any Islamic authority that Islam 'condones' terrorism; you provided no evidence whatsoever that there is consensus among all 1.6 billion Muslims in the world that their religion 'authorizes' terrorism.

Absent such 'evidence' your 'argument' fails as a fallacy.

He's also provided no evidence that "the media doesn't want us to know" this irrelevant info. Of course, if he'd admit it IS irrelevant, then he'd be off that particular hook.

But noooOOOoooo....
 

Did they omit his favorite color and the name of his first girlfriend, too?

Who gives a shit what religion he is? Its only relevant to bigots.
The religion is why he did what he did. The religion commands him to kill infidels. That makes it relevant.

Then somebody quote where it does that. Been asking for the last 65 posts.

Also want to know why the OP and his ilk are not similarly outraged at the media covering up the religions (and shoe sizes, and astrological signs) of McVeigh and Rudolph and Lanza et al. Never got that one answered either.
What you missed the part where the trees tell the Muslims "hey lookie here there is a jew hiding behind me kill me". It's been quoted hundreds of times in a lot of different threads you are just blind to it. Don't expect people to jump through hoops for you providing the proof when you're just going to pshaw is away.
 

Did they omit his favorite color and the name of his first girlfriend, too?

Who gives a shit what religion he is? Its only relevant to bigots.
The religion is why he did what he did. The religion commands him to kill infidels. That makes it relevant.

Such a simple and true reality; and yet libtards have a butt load of bold faced denial; and in poser's case some bold faced denial topped off with copious mind numbing fallacy allegations.
You've provided no objective, documented evidence whatsoever from any Islamic authority that Islam 'condones' terrorism; you provided no evidence whatsoever that there is consensus among all 1.6 billion Muslims in the world that their religion 'authorizes' terrorism.

Absent such 'evidence' your 'argument' fails as a fallacy.
click the link
The Quran s Verses of Violence
and don't lie that it doesn't contain what it does contain
here is a short quote
The Quran:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were notunder attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.
 

Did they omit his favorite color and the name of his first girlfriend, too?

Who gives a shit what religion he is? Its only relevant to bigots.
The religion is why he did what he did. The religion commands him to kill infidels. That makes it relevant.

Such a simple and true reality; and yet libtards have a butt load of bold faced denial; and in poser's case some bold faced denial topped off with copious mind numbing fallacy allegations.
You've provided no objective, documented evidence whatsoever from any Islamic authority that Islam 'condones' terrorism; you provided no evidence whatsoever that there is consensus among all 1.6 billion Muslims in the world that their religion 'authorizes' terrorism.

Absent such 'evidence' your 'argument' fails as a fallacy.
click the link
The Quran s Verses of Violence
and don't lie that it doesn't contain what it does contain
here is a short quote
The Quran:

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...

but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were notunder attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Pogo and CCJ have been shown this stuff 100 times over; I guarantee it. You showed them; they'll just go telling the next person to prove it. That's why I didn't bother in the first place; meanwhile, Pogo keeps crying that nobody's answering him :lmao: Tool.
 
Boston bombing is not done by these two guys. Dzokhar and Tamerlan were brought to US by Graham Fuller. Not only these two boys but about 100 other boys too. They were guests at a Mansion of a Turkish person for 1 month. I cant give more details. You will hear these things long years after.
 
Boston bombing is not done by these two guys. Dzokhar and Tamerlan were brought to US by Graham Fuller. Not only these two boys but about 100 other boys too. They were guests at a Mansion of a Turkish person for 1 month. I cant give more details. You will hear these things long years after.

This is not the conspiracy theory section. Keep your crap over there.
 

Forum List

Back
Top