'ISLAMIC HATE' EYED IN SLAYS

[rocam]

The only one crying here is you. You can have Muslim friends and stand up for them and still be bias to some level about their beliefs. You quoted an article from http://www.worldnetdaily.com and come here telling me you are not bias?? Everyone knows that website is anti Muslim. They are so popular among Muslims haters. As far as I’m concerned, it’s junk.

[coolpharess]

well dv was more into a debate than being bias!
we all have curiosity and lack of knowledge about one another!
so i hope that we all learn from eachothers and how to keep things correct!
i remember when poeople had doubts and looked at mle weird
saying what if terorist or kill non muslims!!
i say would you be still talking to me !!if i was what you are saying
so please let's have a better world ...it is up to us not others...
and im tired os speaking without PHD

[voltaires_priest]

Originally posted by rocam
The only one crying here is you. You can have Muslim friends and stand up for them and still be bias to some level about their beliefs. You quoted an article from http://www.worldnetdaily.com and come here telling me you are not bias?? Everyone knows that website is anti Muslim. They are so popular among Muslims haters. As far as I’m concerned, it’s junk.

So if you quote from websites that have an ideological bias, you must therefore be biased yourself?


V

[rocam]

Originally posted by voltaires_priest

So if you quote from websites that have an ideological bias, you must therefore be biased yourself?


V

When you quote an article from a source and present it as fact, there’s a big chance you consider that source reliable or at least somewhat reliable.

I never use worldnetdaily articles to back up my claims because I think that it’s junk.

[Boogski]

Originally posted by rocam
[b]

When you quote an article from a source and present it as fact, there’s a big chance you consider that source reliable or at least somewhat reliable.

I never use worldnetdaily articles to back up my claims because I think that it’s junk.

This is what was reported to be posted on "Paltalk" by WorldNetDaily:

-----------------------------
"Know this, Ahmed_love_Jesus, we tracked you and being in America will not help you. Your blood is lawful and we will kill you soon.
If you were with me I would have killed you.

I will know where you are and kill you someday.

Ahmed_Love_Jesus, by the life of your mother's [obscenity deleted], your blood is lawful. We know where you are in America and we will slaughter you like the lamb that you worship."
-----------------------------

Either it was posted on Paltalk or it was not. It doesn't matter WHO reported it as being posted. If the threat WAS posted on Paltalk, then WorldNetDaily reported the truth.

Rocam,

Stop trying to play "Gotcha" with DV. You will lose.

[_DigitaLVampirE_]

For your info, the article was also printed in the New York Sun (January 31, 2005 issue). Does that mean they are also Muslim-haters?

By your definition, should i also avoid reading aljazeera.com or any news site run by Muslims? (some of which are anti-Christian.) No? That's what i thought also.

[rocam]

Originally posted by _DigitaLVampirE_
By your definition, should i also avoid reading aljazeera.com or any news site run by Muslims? (some of which are anti-Christian.) No? That's what i thought also.

Why are you asking questions and answering them at the same time??? Do you go to these websites because you trust their news sources or for other reasons?? I say this because you claim that some are anti Christian, so I’m surprised as of why you would be reading them regularly.

I don’t know which other “Muslim� news site you are referring to but as far as aljazeera.com is concerned (which I happen not to check often at all) they have criticized many so-called Muslim regimes when needed. I do not think you can qualify it as anti Christian for reporting what is actually happening.