Why the left wing embraces radical muslim terrorists....

[Mac1958]

That's an "article", and not an opinion piece?

Are you serious?

Holy crap. Amazing.
.

Its quite detailed.names,dates amounts. It shows that his funding originally came from the government and as that reduced he had to turn to other sources. He is just dancing to his masters tune.

You trot out a hit piece from a website called "Loon Watch" and use it as serious source material.

Tell ya what, I'll find a right winger to counter with an "article" from Alex Jones, that should balance things out nicely.

What a joke. Play with someone else. I'll side with the guy putting his life on the line every day, not you.
.

Well they are up front about their sources. I doubt that you have even read the article.

** Totals for funds donated to Quilliam from ‘Pro-Israel/Right-Wing’ organisations, are based mostly on publicly available, tax 990 form documents. It is unknown if there are any further donors which either donate privately or from outside the US/UK to Quilliam. Therefore the stated amounts are the minimum totals of funding that are known, and not necessarily entire amounts.

You can try to deflect from a larger point by attacking an individual all you want. I know how the game is played.

That's a standard tactic of partisan ideologues on both sides (amazing how similar their behaviors can be) and it's fine.

The point remains. This gentleman is putting his life on the line every day advocating for a badly-needed Islamic Reformation. The fact that you're on the other side of the issue and attacking him does not surprise me in the least.
.

So the source of his funding is not material and should not be discussed ?
I note your reluctance to discuss the specifics.
And what side of what issue am I ?

The one attacking the messenger.

Please don't be obtuse, it's tedious.
.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Its quite detailed.names,dates amounts. It shows that his funding originally came from the government and as that reduced he had to turn to other sources. He is just dancing to his masters tune.

You trot out a hit piece from a website called "Loon Watch" and use it as serious source material.

Tell ya what, I'll find a right winger to counter with an "article" from Alex Jones, that should balance things out nicely.

What a joke. Play with someone else. I'll side with the guy putting his life on the line every day, not you.
.

Well they are up front about their sources. I doubt that you have even read the article.

** Totals for funds donated to Quilliam from ‘Pro-Israel/Right-Wing’ organisations, are based mostly on publicly available, tax 990 form documents. It is unknown if there are any further donors which either donate privately or from outside the US/UK to Quilliam. Therefore the stated amounts are the minimum totals of funding that are known, and not necessarily entire amounts.

You can try to deflect from a larger point by attacking an individual all you want. I know how the game is played.

That's a standard tactic of partisan ideologues on both sides (amazing how similar their behaviors can be) and it's fine.

The point remains. This gentleman is putting his life on the line every day advocating for a badly-needed Islamic Reformation. The fact that you're on the other side of the issue and attacking him does not surprise me in the least.
.

So the source of his funding is not material and should not be discussed ?
I note your reluctance to discuss the specifics.
And what side of what issue am I ?

The one attacking the messenger.

Please don't be obtuse, it's tedious.
.

Well you promote this guy as some kind of role model. And I have pointed out that things might not be that clear cut.

But its clear that you think he is above scrutiny.

 

[Syriusly]

This is the thing that always amazes us on the Right...the left wing has teamed up with radical islamic terrorism

How do we know when 2aguy lies?

When he starts another thread.

Does 2aguy with his hyper partisan lying threads actually represent the "Right" as he claims- or just the contard cover Trump's ass portion?

 

[Mac1958]

You trot out a hit piece from a website called "Loon Watch" and use it as serious source material.

Tell ya what, I'll find a right winger to counter with an "article" from Alex Jones, that should balance things out nicely.

What a joke. Play with someone else. I'll side with the guy putting his life on the line every day, not you.
.

Well they are up front about their sources. I doubt that you have even read the article.

** Totals for funds donated to Quilliam from ‘Pro-Israel/Right-Wing’ organisations, are based mostly on publicly available, tax 990 form documents. It is unknown if there are any further donors which either donate privately or from outside the US/UK to Quilliam. Therefore the stated amounts are the minimum totals of funding that are known, and not necessarily entire amounts.

You can try to deflect from a larger point by attacking an individual all you want. I know how the game is played.

That's a standard tactic of partisan ideologues on both sides (amazing how similar their behaviors can be) and it's fine.

The point remains. This gentleman is putting his life on the line every day advocating for a badly-needed Islamic Reformation. The fact that you're on the other side of the issue and attacking him does not surprise me in the least.
.

So the source of his funding is not material and should not be discussed ?
I note your reluctance to discuss the specifics.
And what side of what issue am I ?

The one attacking the messenger.

Please don't be obtuse, it's tedious.
.

Well you promote this guy as some kind of role model. And I have pointed out that things might not be that clear cut.

But its clear that you think he is above scrutiny.

What is clear is that you're trying to blame the messenger to avoid the point.

What is not clear is how you think you'll get away with it.
.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Well they are up front about their sources. I doubt that you have even read the article.

** Totals for funds donated to Quilliam from ‘Pro-Israel/Right-Wing’ organisations, are based mostly on publicly available, tax 990 form documents. It is unknown if there are any further donors which either donate privately or from outside the US/UK to Quilliam. Therefore the stated amounts are the minimum totals of funding that are known, and not necessarily entire amounts.

You can try to deflect from a larger point by attacking an individual all you want. I know how the game is played.

That's a standard tactic of partisan ideologues on both sides (amazing how similar their behaviors can be) and it's fine.

The point remains. This gentleman is putting his life on the line every day advocating for a badly-needed Islamic Reformation. The fact that you're on the other side of the issue and attacking him does not surprise me in the least.
.

So the source of his funding is not material and should not be discussed ?
I note your reluctance to discuss the specifics.
And what side of what issue am I ?

The one attacking the messenger.

Please don't be obtuse, it's tedious.
.

Well you promote this guy as some kind of role model. And I have pointed out that things might not be that clear cut.

But its clear that you think he is above scrutiny.

What is clear is that you're trying to blame the messenger to avoid the point.

What is not clear is how you think you'll get away with it.
.

Ive posted up an article which suggests that Maajid is bought and paid for. Its not about you. Deal with the article rather than try and make it about yourself.

 

[Mac1958]

You can try to deflect from a larger point by attacking an individual all you want. I know how the game is played.

That's a standard tactic of partisan ideologues on both sides (amazing how similar their behaviors can be) and it's fine.

The point remains. This gentleman is putting his life on the line every day advocating for a badly-needed Islamic Reformation. The fact that you're on the other side of the issue and attacking him does not surprise me in the least.
.

So the source of his funding is not material and should not be discussed ?
I note your reluctance to discuss the specifics.
And what side of what issue am I ?

The one attacking the messenger.

Please don't be obtuse, it's tedious.
.

Well you promote this guy as some kind of role model. And I have pointed out that things might not be that clear cut.

But its clear that you think he is above scrutiny.

What is clear is that you're trying to blame the messenger to avoid the point.

What is not clear is how you think you'll get away with it.
.

Ive posted up an article which suggests that Maajid is bought and paid for. Its not about you. Deal with the article rather than try and make it about yourself.

Post 3 is my point. Who the Regressive Left is.

If you want to disagree with the point made there, do so.

Anything else is transparent deflection.
.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

So the source of his funding is not material and should not be discussed ?
I note your reluctance to discuss the specifics.
And what side of what issue am I ?

The one attacking the messenger.

Please don't be obtuse, it's tedious.
.

Well you promote this guy as some kind of role model. And I have pointed out that things might not be that clear cut.

But its clear that you think he is above scrutiny.

What is clear is that you're trying to blame the messenger to avoid the point.

What is not clear is how you think you'll get away with it.
.

Ive posted up an article which suggests that Maajid is bought and paid for. Its not about you. Deal with the article rather than try and make it about yourself.

Post 3 is my point. Who the Regressive Left is.

If you want to disagree with the point made there, do so.

Anything else is transparent deflection.
.

Thats what I have done. Maajids whole quote is bought and paid for and has no weight.

 

[Mac1958]

The one attacking the messenger.

Please don't be obtuse, it's tedious.
.

Well you promote this guy as some kind of role model. And I have pointed out that things might not be that clear cut.

But its clear that you think he is above scrutiny.

What is clear is that you're trying to blame the messenger to avoid the point.

What is not clear is how you think you'll get away with it.
.

Ive posted up an article which suggests that Maajid is bought and paid for. Its not about you. Deal with the article rather than try and make it about yourself.

Post 3 is my point. Who the Regressive Left is.

If you want to disagree with the point made there, do so.

Anything else is transparent deflection.
.

Thats what I have done. Maajids whole quote is bought and paid for and has no weight.

And again, I'm not at all surprised that you would say that.
.

 

[JoeB131]

What they refuse to see is that this spinning and deflecting and defending and coddling ultimately enables the worst behaviors of whatever oppressed victim constituent group they are protecting. And there are several of those.

Guy, I promise you, if we were all Islamist haters like you are, their behavior would not change one iota.

Want to change their behavior. Change our policies.

Stop Supporting Israel.
Stop Supporting Wars
Stop funding "Freedom Fighters" who turn into terrorists when they don't agree with us anymore.

Problem. Fucking. Solved.

What isn't going to solve the problem. Holding up some self-hating Muslim who should probably just quit her religion because she doesn't have the spiritual authority to change it.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Troglocrats and the Terrorist hate the same people

 

[Coyote]

Name the American liberals who support Islamic terrorism.

American liberals don't support it. The left is largely made up of non-liberals.

I am a liberal. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. The American Left is decidedly NOT liberal.

You're not a liberal you're a fucking imbecile.

Name those on the American left who support Islamic terrorism.

No one seems able to....

 

[Coyote]

Truth be told, I think the real motivation behind the Regressive's constant defense of Islam is the "Oppressed/Oppressor" template they apply to virtually all relationships.

Once they have identified the "Oppressed" group, they will spin for, deflect for, attack for, lower standards for, lower expectations for and do anything else they can for that group - even though the net result of all this effort is ultimately and predictably to enable further bad behaviors from that group. Examples of the template:

Oppressed/Oppressor
Islam/Conservatives
Women/Men
Minorities/Whites
Muslims/Christians
Employees/Employers
Poor/Rich
Any other country/America
Non-Achievers/Achievers
Criminals/Cops
Government/Business

... on and on.
.

I personally react against sweeping generalisations of any group of people based on a subset of those people.
The vast majority of Muslims aren't terrorists...as just one example .

I fucking hate terrorists though...of any religion or ideology.

Well said, you hit the nail on the head. A pity we can’t all agree on this simple piece of wisdom.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the source of his funding is not material and should not be discussed ?
I note your reluctance to discuss the specifics.
And what side of what issue am I ?

The one attacking the messenger.

Please don't be obtuse, it's tedious.
.

Well you promote this guy as some kind of role model. And I have pointed out that things might not be that clear cut.

But its clear that you think he is above scrutiny.

What is clear is that you're trying to blame the messenger to avoid the point.

What is not clear is how you think you'll get away with it.
.

Ive posted up an article which suggests that Maajid is bought and paid for. Its not about you. Deal with the article rather than try and make it about yourself.

Post 3 is my point. Who the Regressive Left is.

If you want to disagree with the point made there, do so.

Anything else is transparent deflection.
.

Watch him deflect this:

Name some Americans of consequence who fit the description of those described in your Post 3.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Name the American liberals who support Islamic terrorism.

American liberals don't support it. The left is largely made up of non-liberals.

I am a liberal. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. The American Left is decidedly NOT liberal.

You're not a liberal you're a fucking imbecile.

Name those on the American left who support Islamic terrorism.

No one seems able to....

Pretty weak to be making generalizations about a group of people when zero percent of the group reflect the generaizations.

 

[Pogo]

Name the American liberals who support Islamic terrorism.

American liberals don't support it. The left is largely made up of non-liberals.

I am a liberal. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. The American Left is decidedly NOT liberal.

You're not a liberal you're a fucking imbecile.

Name those on the American left who support Islamic terrorism.

No one seems able to....

Yeah I've been waiting seven pages for this real-world evidence.

That's my problem --- I'm never satisfied with wispy fantasies I have no reason to believe exist.

 

[Mac1958]

The one attacking the messenger.

Please don't be obtuse, it's tedious.
.

Well you promote this guy as some kind of role model. And I have pointed out that things might not be that clear cut.

But its clear that you think he is above scrutiny.

What is clear is that you're trying to blame the messenger to avoid the point.

What is not clear is how you think you'll get away with it.
.

Ive posted up an article which suggests that Maajid is bought and paid for. Its not about you. Deal with the article rather than try and make it about yourself.

Post 3 is my point. Who the Regressive Left is.

If you want to disagree with the point made there, do so.

Anything else is transparent deflection.
.

Watch him deflect this:

Name some Americans of consequence who fit the description of those described in your Post 3.

Why?
.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Well you promote this guy as some kind of role model. And I have pointed out that things might not be that clear cut.

But its clear that you think he is above scrutiny.

What is clear is that you're trying to blame the messenger to avoid the point.

What is not clear is how you think you'll get away with it.
.

Ive posted up an article which suggests that Maajid is bought and paid for. Its not about you. Deal with the article rather than try and make it about yourself.

Post 3 is my point. Who the Regressive Left is.

If you want to disagree with the point made there, do so.

Anything else is transparent deflection.
.

Watch him deflect this:

Name some Americans of consequence who fit the description of those described in your Post 3.

Why?
.

It might give you some credibility.

 

[Mac1958]

What is clear is that you're trying to blame the messenger to avoid the point.

What is not clear is how you think you'll get away with it.
.

Ive posted up an article which suggests that Maajid is bought and paid for. Its not about you. Deal with the article rather than try and make it about yourself.

Post 3 is my point. Who the Regressive Left is.

If you want to disagree with the point made there, do so.

Anything else is transparent deflection.
.

Watch him deflect this:

Name some Americans of consequence who fit the description of those described in your Post 3.

Why?
.

It might give you some credibility.

With Regressives?



Don't need it.

And I've played this game many times. Wanna see how it works?
.

 

[JoeB131]

And I've played this game many times. Wanna see how it works?

We've already seen how it works.

You make a statement with a faulty premise. Like "Muslims attack us because their religion is totally crazy, man!"

and someone counters with - "Um, no, they attack us because we attacked them, first."

And you blather 'See, see, the Regressives are being mean to me again! Waaaaaaahhhhhhh"

You probably throw in a few emojis to boot.

 

[Mac1958]

And I've played this game many times. Wanna see how it works?

We've already seen how it works.

You make a statement with a faulty premise. Like "Muslims attack us because their religion is totally crazy, man!"

and someone counters with - "Um, no, they attack us because we attacked them, first."

And you blather 'See, see, the Regressives are being mean to me again! Waaaaaaahhhhhhh"

You probably throw in a few emojis to boot.

Ah, another Regressive.

Bitch, bitch, bitch.


.