Pamela Geller's New Anti-Islam Ad Invokes "Savages," Totally Not Racist

It is true.Muslims are savages.Islam is stuck in the 7th century AD.The Faria Law is the set of laws that ruled the Dark Ages.No matter what anybody says,Islam (I have the Koran and have read it) prescribed for "infidels"(that you and me) that do not want to convert to the religion is "death".Even so, if muslims need you to work for them,as they did in Spain for 700 years,one is treated as a second class person with few rights and extra taxes.In the 700 years that muslims ruled Spain if one wanted to build a church or synagogue one had to get permition from the local imam.If after finish the imam liked the building it was taken for Islam without compensation.If that is not slavery for the spaniards,I do not know what slavery is.By the way,spanish girls were for the usage of the muslim men with no retribution.Disgusting.Thanfully to 4 battles that Islam lost, (The Battle of Tours,the Battle of Granada,the Battle of Lepanto and the Basttle at the Walls of Vienna) muslims do to rule Europe and so the United StatesYes,study Islam and its Faria Law and yes you'll arrive at the conclusion that,they are savages.

Wow. you're such an idiot that you have to invent pseudo facts and make up words.  Go read history for yourself instead of believing what hatemongers feed you.

I wonder if liberals can explain why the MTA had no problem with ads from Siraj Wahhaj, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 WTC attacks and Holy Land Foundation trial.

pam geller is a dual citizen of israel/us and a member of the zionist organization of america and aipac, why not preface these j-ewish planted pieces in our media with those facts? or would that defeat the purpose of the anti muslim hate propaganda meant to influence americans to hate israels enemies. in post ww1 weimar germany j-ews controlled the media also and would routinely dispariage catholics with vile propaganda pieces. Pam, we want a story about the "dancing israelis on 9-11" or the you tube video of j-ews spitting on american christians visiting israel . oh that doesnt fit with the plan huh,you and your ilk are traitors to america who think your "ground zero mosque" and phony"they hate your freedom" lies will make us continue to send our boys to die invading israels enemies,btw GOOGLE "200 J-EWISH SPIES ARRESTED CONNECTED TO 9-11" they should have been shot in public as a message to ALL j-ews who think about harming america for israel. to all you j-ew scuumm posting your anti muslim crap, get out of america you are human garbage

Nope, nothing savage about a culture that keeps women oppressed and stones them to death when they break the rules.  But it's their culture and we're not allowed to have opinions on it.

Well you said the keyword there buddy, culture, not religion. She's attacking the religion. If you want to attack the Wahabi culture and their oppressive ways, I'd be with you. But if you're going to attack my faith which does not justify these actions, then it becomes a wee bit problematic for me.

The culture is based on the religion. Yes, the bad ones interpret the Quran differently, but there's really no way to confuse, "Non-believers are infidels," right? Who needs to justify their actions, unless the actions are illegal? She owes you nothing and she's entitled to her opinion as you're entitled to yours.

Pamela Geller is a great lady and has more guts than all the hatefilled comments about her and her great mission.

Whether or not you agree with her messages...the MTA should not be the one deciding what political viewpoints get placed on the buses. Allow all viewpoints, or allow none---but don't pick-and-choose.

If Geller's ad is rejected, and the New York Civil Liberties Union isn't offering to rep her (unless Geller says that she has someone else)...something's wrong.

The MTA SHOULD be deciding, considering they own the trains and buses.  They can deny whatever advertisements they want. They owe you or her nothing.

This from the same MTA that had no problem with Siraj Wahhaj.

I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but it's their business which ads get onto their property. People act as if it's a constitutional right to advertise on the subway.

After the execution of Troy Davis, an innocent man, it's obvious that we are the savages.

She's more of a bitch than Ayn Rand herself

we need to get rid of religion all together. go back to worshiping nature. no one group chosen by any God as being the ONES.

Oh good, placing an ad on the subway is totally not 'tip toeing' either! 

Tell that to Israeli police on duty, or if you're really feeling like some absolutist who has a stranglehold on the truth, why not go  fight these savages yourself (Israel has female soldiers)? Where is your sense of moral compass, allowing these savages to run amok? The best you could come up with is an ad, in New York City? 

And you ask why the rest of us are tip toeing while you're the queen of tip toeing? Pfft, troll toll.

After Israel, the largest concentration of Jews in the world is in Greater New York.

Muslim men rape other muslim men.

All religion is bullshit! Anyone who allows their children to go into a Catholic Church is sick.

"Muslims rape babies,"

They don't do that they just kill them.

Islam is a religion, not a race. Religion is based on beliefs. Race is based on skin color. Why do so many people confuse race with religion? Oh I know...calling someone a racist is the best way to neutralize them....even when it is factually wrong.

Geller doesn't like the savagery of the Muslim terrorists. Strong words but valid.

She also associates all Muslims with terrorism.

That is bigotry.

Where's your evidence?

She led the crusade (!) against the Muslim community center near the WTC.

Associating any (or every) Muslim with 9/11 is outright bigotry.

So now you've gone from claiming Geller associates all Muslims with terrorism, to she opposed a Mosque (the 'community center' is a cover story for gullible people like yourself) in a location that was struck by part of one of the planes on 9/11. The fact that the building was struck during the attack makes it part of Ground Zero. 

That is quite a retreat on your part. IOW, you've failed to back up your wild claim.

It is a well known strategy by Muslims to build Mosques on the grounds of churches after conquest, destroying the church and rebuilding a Mosque. Muslims conquerors have done this very thing for over 1,000 years.

The relentless 60-year campaign of terror against the Jewish people is savage
Someone really need to check their history.

There are about as many muslems as christians in the world.
  If she is correct, then the whole world would be doomed.

Islam is NOT a race.
Therefore comments/criticism of islam by their nature CANNOT BE RACIST!

True, in the same way that Judaism is not a race.  Yet Israelis frequently cry bigotry in the face of criticism of their illegal occupation.  I think intelligent people can tell the difference between a principled argument and a Mel Gibson rant, and it's perfectly obvious that most people use the word Muslim in place of Arab because they don't know the difference.  You're excluded from that generalization, of course.

i dont understand how this is a free speech issue.  Nobody has to publish her writing if they dont want to.  does she not realize that this is america?

conservative bloviators generally lack any grasp whatsoever of the free speech issue they proclaim to hold so dear.

to them, "Free speech" means, "the right for everyone to have to listen to me all the time'

By the way I worked in Malmo for a 6 month stretch. That place is a poster child for the real fear of Islamization. Yeah savages is fitting.

When the savages start raping your daughters, assaulting your kid's teachers, forming lawless sects in your neighborhood...then tell us how you feel. Ask Sweden how it's working our for them, or maybe the UK, Denmark? Religion is POISON, especially Islam. I am all for faith in a hiher power, entity, or other plane; whatever you want to call it. When you lead your life based on fairy tales and fictional books (insert Koran, Bible, whatever) then you have lost all connection with this world.
I love the female posters who come to this message board in defense of Islam. The woman is merely a possesion in their (read savages) eyes.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that religion is a poison. When you start believing that there's an invisible man in the sky who tells you what to do, you are no longer thinking rationally and are a danger to yourself and others. 

People like you and I should really be denouncing all religion for what it is: works of fiction that cause otherwise good people to behave horribly towards others. Singling out Islam misses the point. Sure, today Islam is the religion that murders people. Before that it was Catholicism. Before that it was Judaism. And tomorrow, it might be the Mormons or the Scientologists. 

There are hundreds of millions of people around the world who believe in fairy tales and would kill and die for them. They're not just Muslims. The more people learn the history of religion and learn more about science, the faster the scourge of religion will be kept in check.

This all gets back to the myth that the Israelis are innocent and we too in the US, we care about human rights and peace.  bs. 

The Zionists violently established a country in Palestine by ethnically cleansing the area of Arabs...cause Arabs, in their mind are not equal to Jews.  This is a fact.

The European Jews may have been the victims in Europe but in the ME they were and are the aggressors.  The Palestines suffer today like the Jews in ghetto suffered, but American cant shed a tear for them cause we've been propagandized everyday our life to think of Jews as saints and muslims as devils.

bs. bs. bs.

mondoweiss dot net

I don't know about that. I live in the US and I loathe the Jew and the Palestinian equally. The middle east as a whole is worthless, excluding the oil of course.

Well, so much for that. You've shown your true colors. I thought I was reading the comments of a fellow secular humanist (read: reasonable human being) but I was wrong. Go loathe entire ethnic groups somewhere else.

Mondoweiss is a shit resource cited by morons. Case in point ^^^.

Also, just stop with the Israel = apartheid / ethnic cleansing / genocide. It is ridiculous.

Israel is practicing textbook apartheid.

Sorry man.

Ok...explain how. Please show me the comparisons between South Africa and Israel. Ill be waiting dipshit.

The jewish-only settlements.
land seizure.
separate roads.
military checkpoints.
barriers and walls.
pass and travel laws.
trade embargoes.
choked industry.
aid blockades.

Please.

Justify the treatment if you want, but don't deny what it is: the concept of apartheid. Two separate and unequal territories, with all of the power being held by one group.

Wake up.

Well let's see, arabs in israel are a part of the israeli political system, can vote, are afforded the same benefits and opportunities and fight alongside Jews in the Israeli army. You cannot include the Palestinian territories as part of Israel because they are governed separately by their own (albeit awful) entities. What you speak of in your post are just security measures taken against a population with an elected government (Hamas) committed to Israel's destruction. The West Bank Fatah is little better.

Right.

What you call "security measures" most of the rest of the civilized world calls apartheid.

I think we have discovered our disagreement.

"Just....just stop with the facts already. They're too hard to deal with."

Last time I checked, our Navy SEALS yelled "Geronimo" when they killed Bin Laden, not "Custer" (or even "Patton").

terrorists are savages. get over it. not all muslims are terrorists however. those that are (and anyone else of any color who commits crimes like that) are savages. call a spade a spade.

she's not calling a spade a spade. she's calling all muslims savages.

stop being an apologist.

Where does she even refer to all Muslims? She's referring to Palestinian terrorists who murder children with knives while the sleep. You're no better than someone that says all Muslims are terrorists.  Everyone knows that isn't true.

Oh, her party that's opposed to the "Islamization of America".

A weak front for rank bigotry towards Muslims.

But she has muslims friends, so she can't be a bigot, right?

No, shes not. Not all Muslims believe in Jihad, ONLY the fundamentalists support such ideology. Or do you think all of them do? Furthermore, I would categorize anyone who is for the spreading of religion through violent means a savage. It seems to me you are an apologist for violence. If someone ran this same ad about a group of christians who were promoting violence, I'm pretty sure you would be a-ok with me calling them savages, which since I am NOT a hypocrite like you, I would, because they are. For instance, Fred Phelps people are savages. Do you take issue with that too?

She's an anti-muslim bigot who regularly generalizes against the entire group of people.

It seems to me you are an apologist for violence

Who are you George W Bush? "If ya ain't fer us you're aginn'us!"

I am against anyone who paints Muslims or Islam with broad strokes, or in any way claims that it is a "violent religion" or that it 'breeds violence' or that Muslims are terrorist sympathizers.

with percentages like these:

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/26...

Im not sure you can call it "generalizing". But I know people like you have a hard time dealing with facts that don't support your position. 

I'm not even saying its Islams fault, bc I dont think it is, however, you have to deal with the reality of the situation here.

Did you read the deck of that headline? It is precisely my point.

Only in the United States do we equate the 9/11 attackers with domestic armed political groups in the Middle East.

If those people had a chance, they are the same ones that would fly another plane into a building. You think that just bc they think it over there that they wouldnt gladly kill you if they were here? Seriously, its called reality, you might want to experience it some time.

Focus man, I know you can do it:

polls claiming that, "Most Muslims support terrorism" are extremely flawed, as that poll itself points out.

I agree, I do not think most Muslims support terrorism. At one point, that was the truth, evidently it's not anymore. The percentages, if you ask me, are still too high.

They are, but trying to poll people about "terrorism" is almost impossible, IMO.

It is a violent religion. Most religions are if you take them fundamentally. Unfortunately there are a lot more Muslims doing that then anyone else and if you ask me, thats not because they are Muslim, but bc of sociological aspects that are happening in those countries, most of which are ruled by anti education violent dictators. You go to the middle east and walk around in a short skirt or make out with a man you arent married to or, like in saudi arabia, DRIVE if you are a woman, and see what happens to you. Seriously, go do it. You will last 20 minutes. 

Where did I say if you aren't for us you are against us? Yeah, if you are a murdering savage, you are against what I believe in. Seriously you must be some type of moron. You are basically sitting here defending fundamentalists who are murderers, or who would like to be. stop it, it doesnt make you more tolerant or liberal, it makes you an idiot.

Right, religion gets used as a tool by psychos in all faiths.

People like Geller, or Bill O'Reilly, or other bigots think this behavior is, unlike in Christianity, implicit in the Muslim faith specifically.

This post is about Geller. She is not and never was calling a spade a spade, as you put it.

She frequently calls ALL Muslims terrorists.

At no point have I defended actual terrorists of any stripe, yet you continue to argue, as George W Bush would, that by arguing for sanity when thinking about Muslims, I am supporting terrorism.

Why did she invite a Muslim activis from Iran to speak at the Ground Zero mosque protest last year? Your argument is falling apart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad...

you cannot deny the fact that more muslims then christians take their religion to a violent end. I do not like fundamentalist christians, BUT they aren't blowing people up in the numbers that the fundamentalist muslims are. It's just not the case. So when it comes to that, they both have their points.

Geller and O'Reilly do not argue that, "more muslims then christians take their religion to a violent end."

They argue that Mulsims are inherently violent and murderous, and Christians are not. Period.

Understand how they're bigoted now?

Do we need to break down what a bigot is?

I dont think Ive ever seen them say that. I think they are arguing that Islam is inherently a violent religion, and it is. The only place they go wrong is not saying that so is Judaism and many other ones as well. Christianity, new testament only, really isn't if you go EXACTLY by what jesus said-you certainly wouldnt see jesus saying the thing  that Muhammad did ( who also was a pedophile and a slave owner by the way- I do have an issue with a religion that venerates someone as awful as he was honestly, but whatever thats here nor there)

They single out Islam and that makes them wrong, and it makes them bigots.

if christians were blowing shit up all over the world I can assure you they would be singling them out too.

no, you can't assure me that at all.

After the attack in Norway O'Reily said, 'that guy can't be Christian, that goes against the Bible.'

Invoking logic that he strangely never extends to other groups.

Peter King supported the IRA "terrorists" in the 80s but now holds congressional hearings drumming up anti-muslim/terrorist sentiment.

When they're white and christian, these bigots approve. When they're a different race and religion, all the sudden they're 'barbarians'.

you realize the IRA did not actively try to kill civilians correct? So there is a difference, however, I dont think violence is ever a good thing. 

if christians all over the world, in the numbers that muslims are, were doing it, the would address it, i promise you.

The IRA put bombs in pubs to blow up civilians. They bombed London to blow up civilians. They never attacked a British Army base.

you have no basis for being able to promise me that.

none whatsoever.

O'Reilly makes excuses for white terrorists but not for brown ones.

there's no justification for singling out Islam as the main violent religion, or believing that Islam creates violent people, rather than murderers using it as a tool.

Sorry, there's nothing that justifies giving O'Reilly or Geller the benefit of the doubt.

what excuse did oreilly give a white terrorist?

he claimed the dude wasn't a christian terrorist.

thats not an excuse. An excuse would be "oh well it's ok that he did it bc hes a christian"

you're playing semantics.

Let me state my point clearly. According to O'Reilly:

A Muslim commits terrorism in the name of religion, it's because he's a religious fanatic and it proves that Islam is violent.

A christian commits terrorism in the name of religion and O'Reilly finds a way to exclude him from the Christian faith.

By O'Reilly's logic Christians cannot commit terrorism b/c if they commit terrorism they're not Christians.

He does not extend this logic to Muslims.

He is a hypocrite and a bigot.

thats because it CLEARLY states in the Koran that killing to spread Islam is ok, along with numerous other things. Jesus, however, does not say that. SO therefore, he has a point still.

Please show me where in the Qur'an it says "killing to spread Islam is ok." Please.

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.  Such evil must be purged from Israel.  (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed.  (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

 They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.  (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Seriously bro, waaaaaay too easy. Ready, wait for it:

it CLEARLY states in the BIBLE that killing to spread Christianity is ok, along with numerous other things.

Hey MORON. That is all the OLD TESTAMENT. The New Testament negates the old. Jeeeez. I don't even really care about christianity, the fact is though that nothing jesus said advocated violence. thats not the case for mohammed.

Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)

Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)
Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:27-)

Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)

"Seek out your enemies relentlessly." (Surah 4:103-)

"Slay them wherever you find them...Idolatry is worse than carnage...Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme." (Surah 2:190-)

"Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people...They desire nothing but your ruin....You believe in the entire Book...When they meet you they say: 'We, too, are believers.' But when alone, they bite their finger-tips with rage." (Surah 3:118, 119)

How many more do you need genius?

"I say to you that to everyone who has, more shall be given, but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away.  As for my enemies who do not want me to reign over them, bring them here and kill them in my presence" (Luke 19:26-27)."Do not think that I have come to send peace on Earth.  I did not come to send peace, but a sword.  I am sent to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law" (Matthew 10:34-35).New Testament as requested. Like I said earlier brotha, culture is a bitch. Man has always twisted choice selections to provide reasons for their causes, no matter how flawed they are. And also the greatest thing about these arguments are people choose choice translations to validate their arguments. The whole 75 virgins fiasco, scholars have now come to accept that there was never an actual translation alluding to that. It comes out to something stupid like 75 raisins or grapes or something. But the fact of the matter is these versus were created in a time of tribal war and only applied then. The teachings and rules applied later in the life of the Prophet taught coexistence, understanding, and peace. I know you get annoyed that i'm replying everytime, but the fact of the matter is I've been standing on the sideline too long watching people rape my religion and act as if they hold all the facts. The simple truth of the matter is if we are such a violent and bloodthirsty group, how are we continued to exist? Why haven't I gone and beheaded my colleagues, friends, neighbors, etc? Why are there such a large number of muslims in the world? Maybe cause the majority of us are a laid back group of individuals who strive to raise families, give back to our communities, and better our countries, as stated in the basic pillars of our faiths. The term Muslim is translated to believer, and not a believer of Islam, but a believer of good moral principles. Hate away man, but every response you put in, I will counteract it if it's nonsense.

Nothing that is 2,000 years old, supposedly came from "god" and has been interpreted and rewritten a thousand times by a thousand people with their own biases and agendas specific to their place and time in history, CLEARLY states anything.

O'Reilly has no point.

He chooses to only see an idealized version of his own religion in order to justify his preconceived notion that Christians aren't violent, and he swears by a narrow-minded correlation to explain that everything that happens with middle eastern terrorism is b/c of Islam.

It's simplistic, bigoted and ignorant.

Just like Geller.

except, once again, christians are not killing thousands of people a year in the name of christianity. thats just the truth. you can hide from that simple fact.

They absolutely are. Are you kidding? How often has Christianity been referenced, for example, in our engagement in Iraq? By W. Bush? By Rumsfield? Because the media and many analysts have fixated on oil does not mean that there will not eventually be a more robust scholarship on the involvement of Christianity in our overseas engagements. See, for example, Bruce Lincoln's Holy Terrors: Thinking About Religion After 9/11, which compares Bush's speech announcing the invasion of Iraq to bin Laden's first public declarations after 9/11.

you're playing cute games by changing your point.

Despite what you or Bill O'Reilly argue, a person who kills in the name of religion is a terrorist, whether Muslim, Christian or Pastafarian.

For hundreds of years Christians killed MILLIONS of people in the name of religion.

Extremist Christians have been as violent as extremist Muslims, in fact historically speaking they were much worse.

Muslims are celebrated for their terrorist attacks and venerated. Christians who commit mass murder  - events that are few and far between - are condemned by fellow Christians.

Since 9/11 Muslims have committed 20,000 terrorist attacks worldwide including hundreds of suicide bombings of civilians.

When 9/11 occurred Muslims cheered and danced in the street. When the shootings took place in Scandinavia, no Christians danced in the streets.

that fact that you think a majority of muslims 'celebrate terrorist attacks' or 'cheered on 9/11' is a joke.

You are promoting a straw argument. I said, "Muslims are celebrated for their terrorist attacks and venerated. " 

Enough of them do to make the Islamist threat very serious.

No, you are loose with your grammar, probably intentionally so.

When you write, 'Muslims are celebrated for their terrorist attacks and venerated' you should be accurate and say, "...by a very small percentage of muslims globally."

No I'm not loose with my grammar. I made a factual statement. 

OTOH, You are falsely assuming that they are supported by a very small percentage of Muslims globally. From polls that have been done, it would also be grossly inaccurate.

No, when you say, 'Muslims are celebrated for their terrorist attacks and venerated' that doesn't imply SOME, which is the actual truth. Basic writing skills, folks.

The idea that 'terrorism' is a monolithic issue on which Muslims from the US to Indonesia could give clear opinions on is also a joke.

Polls after 9/11 showed a plurality didn't support that attack. IRAN, one of our biggest political enemies, extended condolences. Guess that hurts your theory that "muslims celebrate terrorism" or however you so artfully put it.

No, painting Muslims as a monolithic entity, or 'terrorism' as a political question as clearcut as 'taxes' or "health care' is false on its face.

The Koran is used by some psychopaths to justify their own murderous behavior, just like the bible was used as a tool by European colonists well into the 20th century to literally rape, pillage and enslave clear across the globe. Hell Bush and Cheney cited the f-cking bible when they invaded and destroyed Iraq.

The religion didn't make these people do these things, that's just what simple-thinking people see when they are looking for easy ways to classify and vilify people who are different from themselves.

FYI, I have a degree in Education and am certified to teach English in all 50 states, so let me give you a lesson in grammar since you have forced the issue.

If "Muslims are celebrated for their terrorist attacks and venerated' had  the same meaning as "ALL Muslims are celebrated for their terrorist attacks and venerated," then the word "All" would be redundant.

Quite obviously, the word "all" is not redundant and it changes the meaning of the sentence to include it. 

So you are wrong. If you were taking a test, you would have been marked off for your erroneous interpretation.

You are also unfamiliar with how the Koran is interpreted. As there is in any religious book, there are contradictions. The way Muslims understand those contradictions is that whatever comes later in the book supersedes any contradictory statement that comes earlier in the book.

It just so happens that the latter parts of the book advocates the subjugation or murder of infidels and lying to advance the Muslim cause.

There are more than enough Muslims who subscribe to this believe to make Islamism a dangerous threat to the world.

Now getting back to Geller. You have failed miserably in supporting your claim that she has spoken out against all Muslims. That being the case, you are way out of line throwing all sorts of charges against her or anyone else at this point.

You see, I asked you a simple question because I don't know whether Geller has said what you claimed. I was looking for support for that claim.

You don't have it. Or if you do, you haven't presented it. So far, you've presented yourself as being someone not worth listening to.

I'm glad you have a degree in English, but you don't have a degree in Islamic studies. Any Islamic scholar will tell you that the Qu'ran was not compiled chronologically. There was never any order in mind when it was compiled by the Caliph at the time. It was compiled more in artistic sense than it was as mandates  and protocols, thus more with a poetic structure. So to state that the latter part of the book advocates violence has nothing to do with what is mandated or followed. It was created during a time of turmoil, and if fools decide that those versus apply today, that is what they are, fools. But to sit back and state that this is the general belief held by the majority is one stated in ignorance. Stop using the third world cultures as the basis for this whole religion, I don't go using the amish as the basis for christianity.

You are engaging in more taqiyya (translation: lying.)

i did not say the Koran was chronological. I said what is written in the book later cancels out anything contradictory earlier in the Koran.

There are millions or tens of millions of Islamists who believe they need to kill or subjugate the non Muslims, so stop trying to blow smoke up our asses. 

This large carde of true believers are a threat to humanity, and have inflicted murder across the globe in terrorists attacks TWENTY THOUSAND times since 9/11.

But then again, I'm not suprised. Dr. Revici never provided proper documentation for his studies and so called cures to the academic world, and continued to make his claims. When I worked for the UPenn Environmental and Cancer studies department, his studies were quite amusing to us...

Have you found any nontoxic cures for cancer, yet? [crickets] Why not! 

It's not too amusing what the cancer industry has done to 14,800,000 dead cancer patients since Nixon declared war on cancer in 1971. 

Of course Revici provided proper documentation.
What the medical industry did to Revici is a scandal beyond compare.

I have personally met patient after patient who had no chance of survival, but then Revici cured them.

""Muslims are celebrated for their terrorist attacks and venerated' " doesn't have the same meaning, it is simply conveniently vague.

As you believe that Islam commands Muslims to kill, clearly you apply such beliefs pretty broadly.

I appreciate your grammar lesson though.

Anyway,

"Islam" doesn't make some people do these things, it is just a tool they use to justify their own psychopathic urges.

The Bible didn't make colonists carve up, rape and pillage Africa in the 20th century, it was just a tool used to justify enslavement and exploitation for political and economic ends.

See how it works?

Correlation is not causation. How about you just start with that really simple fact.

You're starting to piss me off. 

There is nothing vague about the statement that I made. It was a true statement. We don't know exactly how many Muslims are Islamists or whether it is a majority, a large majority of a small minority. 

We do have a good indication from the Pew polls that is is a huge number. So unlike you, who makes claims without support, I made a statement that is known to be true.

We've also established that you run away from facts, as evidenced by your decision not to admit your claim about Geller was a false one pulled out of thin air because you wished it to be true.

If you want to discuss the behavior of Christians in the early 20th century, you should do that when the topic arises. This discussion is about the ads Geller was pushing and whether Islamic terrorists are indeed savages.

The argument that Islamic terrorists aren't savages because Christians have been savages in the past just doesn't work as an effective argument.

The terrorists point to their book as the basis for their murderous behavior. We should take them at their word that following the Koran is their motivation. It is why the Army psychiatrist chanted "Allahu Akbar" while he was murdering and wounding soldiers at Ft. Hood.

BTW, Allahu Akbar is different from Allah Akbar. Allahu Akbar is used when performing an attack. It is a war cry.

Again, your last statement, I have no idea where you're basing this from. There is no Allah akbar chant, it's not grammatically correct in the Arabic sense (i grew up in an arabic speaking household). Allahu Akbar is said everytime i begin my prayer, every time we start a celebration, every time  a joyous occasion arrises. Again, thanks to media/tv portrayal and this moron fundamentalists gleefully using it whenever, it has become another word that the ignorant believe is associated with bloodshed and warfare.

There is a Muslim rule that promotes lying. It is called Taqiyya. I bring that to your attention because that's what you've just done.

Anyone can Google Allahu Akbar and find a nearly unlimited list of sources. Here is one from Wikipedia:

In history
It has been used historically as a battle cry during war.[30]

Also: In the Islamic world, instead of applause, often someone will shout takbir and the crowd will respond "Allahu Akbar" in chorus"

Now go try your Taqiyya on someone else.

Actually brotha, I was responding to your idiotic comment about their being two different chants. There isn't. Allahu Akbar means God is Great. To say there is Allah Akbar which would just translate out to God Great, and try to state that there is a separate chant is actually, retarded. And yes, it was used as a battle cry, so was Geronimo, but Geronimo is a name, it's purpose was never to be a battle cry. And taqiya is a political and cultural term used by Shi'a muslims, and is not at all encouraged in the mainstream faith. So again, stop trying to google and pull random facts and package it together as generalized truth. You look like an idiot, especially for a teacher.

Your problem is you have no credibility. You taqiyya-ed and lost,.

You just when you tried to claim Allahu Akbar wasn't a war chant when we find that Atta uttered it before crashing the plane on 9/11, and the psychiatrist shouted it before opening fire to name two instances where it was used as a war chant. 

Now that you've been busted, you're trying to make a different argument. But you're untrustworthy. Go figure. 

So wait, when fanatics twist a chant to use as their own, it then becomes established that's all the chant is used for? Good to know, so when i'm making passionate love to my girlfriend and she shouts "oh God" in bed, i know now that oh God can only be used for wonderful sex. But if we're talking credibility, i dont' know if I can trust a guy who's username is based on an individual who refused to reveal the data on his research, in which, what was it, out of 33 cancer patients, 22 died, 8 showed no improvement, and 3 showed further tumor growth?