Russell Brand on Canada Attack and Media Manipulation of Fear

First topic message reminder :



https://youtu.be/ALEaAAU3KAE

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

I never realised idiocy was a religion. Lol!

Yes its called Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc
Always one step ahead mate, best you bow out gracefully you are already looking like a sore loser.

What winner or loser?

This is not a debate - d'uh!

Looks like you're getting angry now. What next, threatening me with violence?

That will make your mother really proud.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:The funniest part also here is you think I am an idiot yet I had to educate you on what was emotive in the speech by the Canadian PM, the patriotism, you fail to understand psychology, which is funny and also ironic..
Not bad for as you call me a complete idiot.

Correction: you're an arrogant idiot.

You really do think you're that intelligent. HA HA!

Now go take care of your mother.

Yes I am arrogant to you, because I know it easily makes you react every time, which means I have you in my pocket in every debate, that is how you manipulate emotive people.
I think I am of average intelligence but have vast knowledge in certain fields, as most people do, I just argue well the views I do know well which as seen draws yet again an emotive response from you.
She is very well thanks for asking.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Yes its called Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc
Always one step ahead mate, best you bow out gracefully you are already looking like a sore loser.

What winner or loser?

This is not a debate - d'uh!

Looks like you're getting angry now. What next, threatening me with violence?

That will make your mother really proud.

You see I manipulated yet again another emotive response, is too easy for me.
You are the sore loser as seen by the fact you got schooled in this debate by both Eilzel and myself, which led to many of your emotive responses.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Correction: you're an arrogant idiot.

You really do think you're that intelligent. HA HA!

Now go take care of your mother.

Yes I am arrogant to you, because I know it easily makes you react every time, which means I have you in my pocket in every debate, that is how you manipulate emotive people.
I think I am of average intelligence but have vast knowledge in certain fields, as most people do, I just argue well the views I do know well which as seen draws yet again an emotive response from you.
She is very well thanks for asking.

Lol! Glad you've finally admitted you're arrogant and sanctimonious.

Admission is the first step to a cure. Good boy.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



Yes I am arrogant to you, because I know it easily makes you react every time, which means I have you in my pocket in every debate, that is how you manipulate emotive people.
I think I am of average intelligence but have vast knowledge in certain fields, as most people do, I just argue well the views I do know well which as seen draws yet again an emotive response from you.
She is very well thanks for asking.

Lol! Glad you've finally admitted your arrogant and sanctimonious.

Admission is the first step to a cure. Good boy.

There is no need of a cure when the arrogance has the intended affect on the poster it is meant for, as seen by his continual emotive immature responses.
Many others you will see I am not arrogant, which says more about your character than it does others, I see you as a little pet to play with.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Lol! Glad you've finally admitted your arrogant and sanctimonious.

Admission is the first step to a cure. Good boy.

There is no need of a cure when the arrogance has the intended affect on the poster it is meant for, as seen by his continual emotive immature responses.
Many others you will see I am not arrogant, which says more about your character than it does others, I see you as a little pet to play with.

Aahh! From 'mate' to 'little pet'. In just a few posts.

Go calm down. It's only Saturday morning.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



There is no need of a cure when the arrogance has the intended affect on the poster it is meant for, as seen by his continual emotive immature responses.
Many others you will see I am not arrogant, which says more about your character than it does others, I see you as a little pet to play with.

Aahh! From 'mate' to 'little pet'. In just a few posts.

Go calm down. It's only Saturday morning.

A pet is a mate, guess you have never had a pet, but I have to admit you are the most fun I have ever had with a pet.

Good, someone else noticed how tired and drained Obama looks. He was as bright as a button to look at though the beginning of his presidency. Then he started to look as if he had lost, and looked like man under immense pressure and suddenly realising it. He has never bounced back from what I can see of it.

Cass wrote:
for my two cents worth......and stop having such interesting things to discuss today - this is putting me behind.
Both Brand and the PM are both right and yet both wrong.

getting down to the bottom line - the perp had a long history of conviction and long history of mental health and drug use. yes he converted to Islam, yes he probably got "radicalized" by seeing things in the media, yes he made a symbolic ttack on Canada in the form of a soldier and the Parliament and yes the media frenzy was way over the top and the PM used emotive language and it will lead to some trying to penalize Muslims in generous .......BUT......
this guy could have been converted to a domestic Supremacist group, another hard core Christianity group,  any group in fact that preys on the weak and uses them for their dirty work while remaining safe in the background.

TOO TRUE,  Cass !

AND the same points that I've posted on a couple of other threads on the  conversion, indoctrination and so-called "radicalisation" of recruits into various terrorist groups, religious cults and criminal gangs..

Brand is a twat and only trying to get media attention because he's just released a book....



Now this is an interesting read about an evil and barbaric, mentally disturbed epileptic, murdering, robbing and raping peadophile and his gang of bandits....

http://www.historyofjihad.org/

Tommy Monk wrote:Brand is a twat and only trying to get media attention because he's just released a book....



Now this is an interesting read about an evil and barbaric, mentally disturbed epileptic, murdering, robbing and raping peadophile and his gang of bandits....

http://www.historyofjihad.org/

agree about RB but sometimes he does make pertinent points.

as to the website - Matt this is an extremely biased and inaccurate site that is run by Robert Spencer. it has been critized by both academics, intelligence services personnel and institutions that monitor hate crimes, and respected authors who have written on the middle east and Islam such as Karen Armstrong.

Tommy Monk wrote:Brand is a twat and only trying to get media attention because he's just released a book....



Now this is an interesting read about an evil and barbaric, mentally disturbed epileptic, murdering, robbing and raping peadophile and his gang of bandits....

http://www.historyofjihad.org/

Actually Cass is right like the other one you post it is complete crap written by racist making shit up

Like the one you posted that ACTUALLY references Stormfront like you he quotes someone quoting something and when you follow it back it is not in the Koran or anything like that it is just some guy on Stormfront SAID the Koran said that.

Don't know about Spence.


But the historical points raised aren't necessarily wrong just because they are critical and show Islam in a bad light....



And Veya, bold claim but can you actually show us what it is I post that is wrong?



Didn't think so.....

Tommy it is so fucking stupid only to dumbest dickhead would pay even the slightest attention and think that they could use it to suggest facts. Seriously you may as well quote stormfront

Jihad against the Mongol ???? WTF is that I don't think you can Jihad against GENGHIS MOTHER FUCKING KAHN I think that is Called trying to not die.

ever think that a site posting comic like this might be a little biased

Before the idea crosses your mind that we are trying to defame the holy(sic@#$%^) Prophet, please realize that we are paying him a tribute with this portrait of his by Abdullah Aziz (Praise be to him) of http://www.islamcomicbook.com.

Mohammed in real life was far more murderous than this portrait might suggest. He was a pioneer in mass murder, lecherous incest and mind-numbing torture. Hence this relatively ‘humane’ looking portrait of this heinous ghoul Mohammed is in fact our tribute to him.

and complete lie about him being Murderous, Islam is A relatively peaceful religious rise it wasn't until it gets against he Byzantine empire that we see real violence and that is CALLED THE FIRST CRUSADES and the violence in Mainly committed by the CHRISTIANS against Muslims.


LITERALLY the Whole site you posted from is lies made up by little men to say look what Islam is see we just said what Islam is on this website (Again this is just like the other crap you posted, 2 seconds on google and in this case even just reading it clearly points out that it has no intention of presenting a true or accurate portrait of Islam.

Like down the side of the page
it says that Islam raise the slaughter on non believers well that is obviously someone that has NEVER read Bible or Koran. the Worst of it comes from the old testament and the Koran adds new rules that make it far nicer and require far more mercy that Christianity. Plus real History Islamic Invasion of Europe 2 very minor incursions in Spain and Byzantine, Christians have 3 major invasions of Islamic territories in the same time.
LITERALLY ALL of it is wrong so wrong that you have to be incredible stupid to even think for a fucking second any of that is accurate I mean IQ must be under fucking 80 to be able to read and believe that rubbish.

The lecherous-murderer, Mohammed’s first object of hatred was women. He hated independence for women. Pre-Islamic Arabic women never wore the Hijab (cloak) or Nikab (mask). It was the sick mind of this mass murderer that forced these practices on Muslim ladies and pushed them in to a zenana (Ladies quarters)

Like this is the Biggest Rubbish ever
CHRISTIANS USED TOO AS WELL, Catholic women still had to until like 2 generations ago. The Head cover commandment is found in the Old testament All 3 used to follow it and it was definitely common practice around the middle east and Mediterranean (including Spain and Italy) LONG before the Abrahamic religions achieved dominance before that many including Athenian women Used to have to wear head scarves.

Waffle.....

Mohammed was an aggressive bandit and robber, killing, raping and looting from the start.



Gathering an army of other similarly minded scum bags with the promise of more of The same as a reward.



They murdered, raped, looted and ransacked their way across the middle east, north Africa and into southern Europe as far as taking over much of Spain before any crusades happened in an attempt to drive back this evil and reclaim the lands.

Tommy Monk wrote:Mohammed was an aggressive bandit and robber, killing, raping and looting from the start.



Gathering an army of other similarly minded scum bags with the promise of more of The same as a reward.



They murdered, raped, looted and ransacked their way across the middle east, north Africa and into southern Europe as far as taking over much of Spain before any crusades happened in an attempt to drive back this evil and reclaim the lands.

Yes, must have been quite upsetting for the people of these regions, who had never known anything but peace before those scum arrived, and who have had no wars or atrocities since the Crusades ...

The above shows how simple minded Tommy's view of history is.

The Crusades led by the Franks cannot be about reclaiming land as they never were from the Holy lands.

The Holy lands were only Christian for a few short centuries, where Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, thus all and within this had no say on the matter. They made nations for themselves and gave nothing to the Byzantines, showing the Crusades was more about personal ambitious Franks carving up lands for themselves.

This Roman empire itself had about murdering, raping, looting and ransacking their way across much of the known world.

Maybe Tommy can explain that when Medina surrendered, why nobody was raped, they were allowed to continue with their faiths and that only a few Jews who were allied to Muhammad had betrayed him, were executed and only after they themselves when asked what punishment was fit asked to be sentenced according to Deuteronomy laws?

Maybe Tommy can explain why when Jerusalem was taken by the Muslims, nobody was raped, people were allowed to continue with their faiths and no holy places of worship were touched, yet when the Crusaders took Jerusalem, thousands of Jews and Muslims, including women and children were butchered with holy places ransacked? Now this shows the Muslims of Muhammad's time had a different approach than to later Muslims on conflicts.

Many empires have been about spreading ideals and faiths, what do you think the British empire was spread on?

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:...............................

Now this is an interesting read about an evil and barbaric, mentally disturbed epileptic, murdering, robbing and raping peadophile and his gang of bandits....

http://www.historyofjihad.org/

Actually Cass is right like the other one you post it is complete crap written by racist making shit up

Like the one you posted that ACTUALLY references Stormfront like you he quotes someone quoting something and when you follow it back it is not in the Koran or anything like that it is just some guy on Stormfront SAID the Koran said that.

    I HAVE yet to see anything quoted by Tommy M. on here that isn't in one way or another a complete load of crap...

WOULDN'T surprise me in the least if T.M. turns out to be the organiser for his local racist/nationalist/xenophobe/crappola society, either..

Your full of hate wolf, you need a good woman.

Brasidas wrote:The above shows how simple minded Tommy's view of history is.

The Crusades led by the Franks cannot be about reclaiming land as they never were from the Holy lands.

The Holy lands were only Christian for a few short centuries, where Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, thus all and within this had no say on the matter. They made nations for themselves and gave nothing to the Byzantines, showing the Crusades was more about personal ambitious Franks carving up lands for themselves.

This Roman empire itself had about murdering, raping, looting and ransacking their way across much of the known world.

Maybe Tommy can explain that when Medina surrendered, why nobody was raped, they were allowed to continue with their faiths and that only a few Jews who were allied to Muhammad had betrayed him, were executed and only after they themselves when asked what punishment was fit asked to be sentenced according to Deuteronomy laws?

Maybe Tommy can explain why when Jerusalem was taken by the Muslims, nobody was raped, people were allowed to continue with their faiths and no holy places of worship were touched, yet when the Crusaders took Jerusalem, thousands of Jews and Muslims, including women and children were butchered with holy places ransacked? Now this shows the Muslims of Muhammad's time had a different approach than to later Muslims on conflicts.

Many empires have been about spreading ideals and faiths, what do you think the British empire was spread on?

Medina surrendered?

Lol! You claim to be an expert in history?

Anyway, stop having a go at Tommy.

The world needs people like him.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:The above shows how simple minded Tommy's view of history is.

The Crusades led by the Franks cannot be about reclaiming land as they never were from the Holy lands.

The Holy lands were only Christian for a few short centuries, where Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire, thus all and within this had no say on the matter. They made nations for themselves and gave nothing to the Byzantines, showing the Crusades was more about personal ambitious Franks carving up lands for themselves.

This Roman empire itself had about murdering, raping, looting and ransacking their way across much of the known world.

Maybe Tommy can explain that when Medina surrendered, why nobody was raped, they were allowed to continue with their faiths and that only a few Jews who were allied to Muhammad had betrayed him, were executed and only after they themselves when asked what punishment was fit asked to be sentenced according to Deuteronomy laws?

Maybe Tommy can explain why when Jerusalem was taken by the Muslims, nobody was raped, people were allowed to continue with their faiths and no holy places of worship were touched, yet when the Crusaders took Jerusalem, thousands of Jews and Muslims, including women and children were butchered with holy places ransacked? Now this shows the Muslims of Muhammad's time had a different approach than to later Muslims on conflicts.

Many empires have been about spreading ideals and faiths, what do you think the British empire was spread on?

Medina surrendered?

Lol! You claim to be an expert in history?

Yes I made a school boy error and meant to say Mecca, but hey ho anything to please an adult with the mentality of a 4 year old.
I aim to please.

Brasidas wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Medina surrendered?

Lol! You claim to be an expert in history?

Yes I made a school boy error and meant to say Mecca, but hey ho anything to please an adult with the mentality of a 4 year old.
I aim to please.

And just how many school boy errors have you made on here.

M y Wife goes to Mecca once a week, it's all ways open!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Yes I made a school boy error and meant to say Mecca, but hey ho anything to please an adult with the mentality of a 4 year old.
I aim to please.

And just how many school boy errors have you made on here.

No idea, would you like to keep track?
Hilarious, 4 year old mentality again from Zack.