This woman is a hero

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEQuW2v6U2o]GOD HATES FAGS!!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[ima]

I'm reading Wafa Sultans biography, very interesting.

nobody cares

 

[High_Gravity]

I'm reading Wafa Sultans biography, very interesting.

nobody cares

You replied, so obviously you do dumb fuck.

 

[JStone]

I'm reading Wafa Sultans biography, very interesting.

nobody cares

Your quran was written by a pedophile.

Wafa is much better.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1K3gHav9E8]The Bible Supports Incest? The Story of Lot - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHwERmdWMGE]Sex Acts Inspired by the Bible vs Quran (Lot Story) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JStone]

Sex Acts Inspired by the Bible vs Quran (Lot Story) - YouTube

The mentally disturbed random youtube poster eots strikes, again!

eots pms
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xU-rJNgoWU&feature=related]Bloody Keyboard Guy - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4Vp642ERhM&feature=related]Sound-Effects - Crowd Laughing - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hossfly]

The Bible Supports Incest? The Story of Lot - YouTube

Ideotic twaddle.

 

[JStone]

Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth, 33b...

The seduction of a minor is deemed to be an outrage

Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad...

Muhammad [53 years old] married ‘A’isha in Mecca when she was a child of six and lived with her in Medina when she was nine or ten. She was the only virgin that he married. Her father, Abu Bakr, married her to him and the apostle gave her four hundred dirhams

Sahih Bukhari Hadeeth

Narrated 'Aisha:: The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).

 

[Jos]

The Bible Supports Incest? The Story of Lot - YouTube

Ideotic twaddle.

Spelling twat

 

[JStone]

Ibn Ishaq, The Life of Muhammad...

Muhammad [53 years old] married ‘A’isha in Mecca when she was a child of six and lived with her in Medina when she was nine or ten. She was the only virgin that he married. Her father, Abu Bakr, married her to him and the apostle gave her four hundred dirhams

Sahih Bukhari Hadeeth

Narrated 'Aisha:: The Prophet and I used to take a bath from a single pot while we were Junub. During the menses, he used to order me to put on an Izar (dress worn below the waist) and used to fondle me. While in Itikaf, he used to bring his head near me and I would wash it while I used to be in my periods (menses).

 

[Hossfly]

The Bible Supports Incest? The Story of Lot - YouTube

Ideotic twaddle.

Spelling twat

Sorry. Left out the S.


Id-eots-ic twaddle. That better?

 

[Jos]

Ideotic twaddle.

Spelling twat

Sorry. Left out the S.


Id-eots-ic twaddle. That better?

No, not really, did you mean idiotic ? you idiot

 

[Truthseeker420]

Wafa Sultan with anti-Muslim loon Pamela Geller

And your point is?

Bigots of a feather flock together.

 

[Roudy]

We must begin this profile with a question: Is there a more contemptible poseur than Wafa Sultan who calls herself an atheist but in the same breath also claims to be a Muslim reformer, which would kind of be like Christopher Hitchens calling himself a Christian reformer? It is difficult to answer that question with certainty considering the wide pool of bigots who combine charlatanism with raving and incorrigible insanity. But for sure one thing is certain, she is completely undeserving of the 15 minutes of fame she has succeeded in procuring.

In this sense, Wafa Sultan falls into the same category as Walid Shoebat, Brigitte Gabriel, Nonie Darwish, Kamal Saleem, Zachariah Anani and other self-proclaimed turn coats from their Arab and Muslim identities. As we mentioned before this group attempts to parlay their “otherness,” and so-called “insider knowledge of the Muslim world,” (the “I’ve been there, I know” line) into a cash cow. Meanwhile, we are supposed to be duped into freaking out and running back to them for more “expert” advice brought to us from our loyal friend who ventures into the other side on our behalf.

Sultan is no different, her tale of flight into Islamophobic stardom is a curious and thoroughly modern one. In the beginning of this tale Sultan was invited onto a show hosted by the well known anchorman of AlJazeera’s Opposing Viewpoints (Ittijaah al-Mu’aakas), Faisal Al-Qasim for the purpose of a debate with professor Ibrahim al-Khouly from Al-Azhar on the topic of the Clash of Civilizations and the Clash of Religions. Al-Qasim, brought her onto the show originally after noticing some of her articles on the Arabic website called AnNaqed (The Critic). The New York Times reported that the website was an Islamic reform site, but in actuality it turns out that it is a Christian website

Wafa Sultan: A Poseur Playing off of Ignorance to Further Hate | loonwatch.com

what you are doing, or actually what your link is doing is using "ad hominem" which is a logic fallacy (fallacy means an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid).
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically what you are doing, is focusing your reply on the speaker and not the actual content of her arguments.

Your reply is unsuccessful in negating any of the speakers arguments (in reality, it's not even trying to do so). All you do is talk about the speaker herself which is highly relevant to the point she's making. This renders your argument logically invalid.

You didn't even look at the link. It very much questions her credibility of her motives and aurguments.

MEMRI, (Middle East Media Research Institute) which peddles in biased, selective, de-contextualized, error-filled, and misleading translations of news, shows and opinion from Middle East television took the 45 minute show and per its modus operandi chopped up and edited the show into a 5 minute sound bite of Wafa Sultan’s attack on Muslims and Islam. In the process, and without any respect for translational integrity they also attempted to deceptively frame Professor Khouly as proclaiming Sultan a “heretic,” when, as this fully translated transcript shows he did no such thing. Instead Khouly responded to Sultan’s jibes with questions that though we might not agree to the way he frames them are far from irrational or undebatable,

Your feeble attempts at slandering and undermining Wafa won't work. She's already been noted for what she had done. The fact that she's an ex Muslim who has come out and said the truth speaks volumes in itself.

 

[Truthseeker420]

what you are doing, or actually what your link is doing is using "ad hominem" which is a logic fallacy (fallacy means an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid).
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically what you are doing, is focusing your reply on the speaker and not the actual content of her arguments.

Your reply is unsuccessful in negating any of the speakers arguments (in reality, it's not even trying to do so). All you do is talk about the speaker herself which is highly relevant to the point she's making. This renders your argument logically invalid.

You didn't even look at the link. It very much questions her credibility of her motives and aurguments.

MEMRI, (Middle East Media Research Institute) which peddles in biased, selective, de-contextualized, error-filled, and misleading translations of news, shows and opinion from Middle East television took the 45 minute show and per its modus operandi chopped up and edited the show into a 5 minute sound bite of Wafa Sultan’s attack on Muslims and Islam. In the process, and without any respect for translational integrity they also attempted to deceptively frame Professor Khouly as proclaiming Sultan a “heretic,” when, as this fully translated transcript shows he did no such thing. Instead Khouly responded to Sultan’s jibes with questions that though we might not agree to the way he frames them are far from irrational or undebatable,

Your feeble attempts at slandering and undermining Wafa won't work. She's already been noted for what she had done. The fact that she's an ex Muslim who has come out and said the truth speaks volumes in itself.

She might have credibility with you bigots but that's about it.

 

[JStone]

You didn't even look at the link. It very much questions her credibility of her motives and aurguments.

Your feeble attempts at slandering and undermining Wafa won't work. She's already been noted for what she had done. The fact that she's an ex Muslim who has come out and said the truth speaks volumes in itself.

She might have credibility with you bigots but that's about it.

Dr. Sultan, an Arab-American and former Muslime, is also a psychiatrist. This latter credential would be good for you, psycho

 

[Wolverine1984]

We must begin this profile with a question: Is there a more contemptible poseur than Wafa Sultan who calls herself an atheist but in the same breath also claims to be a Muslim reformer, which would kind of be like Christopher Hitchens calling himself a Christian reformer? It is difficult to answer that question with certainty considering the wide pool of bigots who combine charlatanism with raving and incorrigible insanity. But for sure one thing is certain, she is completely undeserving of the 15 minutes of fame she has succeeded in procuring.

In this sense, Wafa Sultan falls into the same category as Walid Shoebat, Brigitte Gabriel, Nonie Darwish, Kamal Saleem, Zachariah Anani and other self-proclaimed turn coats from their Arab and Muslim identities. As we mentioned before this group attempts to parlay their “otherness,” and so-called “insider knowledge of the Muslim world,” (the “I’ve been there, I know” line) into a cash cow. Meanwhile, we are supposed to be duped into freaking out and running back to them for more “expert” advice brought to us from our loyal friend who ventures into the other side on our behalf.

Sultan is no different, her tale of flight into Islamophobic stardom is a curious and thoroughly modern one. In the beginning of this tale Sultan was invited onto a show hosted by the well known anchorman of AlJazeera’s Opposing Viewpoints (Ittijaah al-Mu’aakas), Faisal Al-Qasim for the purpose of a debate with professor Ibrahim al-Khouly from Al-Azhar on the topic of the Clash of Civilizations and the Clash of Religions. Al-Qasim, brought her onto the show originally after noticing some of her articles on the Arabic website called AnNaqed (The Critic). The New York Times reported that the website was an Islamic reform site, but in actuality it turns out that it is a Christian website

Wafa Sultan: A Poseur Playing off of Ignorance to Further Hate | loonwatch.com

what you are doing, or actually what your link is doing is using "ad hominem" which is a logic fallacy (fallacy means an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid).
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically what you are doing, is focusing your reply on the speaker and not the actual content of her arguments.

Your reply is unsuccessful in negating any of the speakers arguments (in reality, it's not even trying to do so). All you do is talk about the speaker herself which is highly relevant to the point she's making. This renders your argument logically invalid.

You didn't even look at the link. It very much questions her credibility of her motives and aurguments.

I looked at the link briefly. However my reply most focused on what you have written. Understand that how motive and credibility does not matter here.

If you meet a paranoid schizophrenic in a mental institution, who is saying: "I argue that 2+2 = 4". and you know that his only motivation for saying this, is that another patient promised him huge amounts of money if he would say that sentence.

It's clear, that neither the credibility of the speaker (he's a paranoid schizophrenic), nor his motivation (he was promised huge amounts of money for saying the sentence) is affecting the truthfulness of his statement (2+2 really equals four).

 

[Roudy]

You didn't even look at the link. It very much questions her credibility of her motives and aurguments.

Your feeble attempts at slandering and undermining Wafa won't work. She's already been noted for what she had done. The fact that she's an ex Muslim who has come out and said the truth speaks volumes in itself.

She might have credibility with you bigots but that's about it.

She has credibility where it counts. You morons worship all the racists, bigots, and anti semites in the world, including terrorists like Hamas and Iran's leader. How's that for credibility?

 

[Truthseeker420]

what you are doing, or actually what your link is doing is using "ad hominem" which is a logic fallacy (fallacy means an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid).
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically what you are doing, is focusing your reply on the speaker and not the actual content of her arguments.

Your reply is unsuccessful in negating any of the speakers arguments (in reality, it's not even trying to do so). All you do is talk about the speaker herself which is highly relevant to the point she's making. This renders your argument logically invalid.

You didn't even look at the link. It very much questions her credibility of her motives and aurguments.

I looked at the link briefly. However my reply most focused on what you have written. Understand that how motive and credibility does not matter here.

If you meet a paranoid schizophrenic in a mental institution, who is saying: "I argue that 2+2 = 4". and you know that his only motivation for saying this, is that another patient promised him huge amounts of money if he would say that sentence.

It's clear, that neither the credibility of the speaker (he's a paranoid schizophrenic), nor his motivation (he was promised huge amounts of money for saying the sentence) is affecting the truthfulness of his statement (2+2 really equals four).

The link is calling her a liar and her statements false and misleading.