Tuesday, February 12, 2013




Must not mention that there are many gun-wielding Muslim terrorists who wear turbans

"A Michigan gun store will stop selling targets that depict a skeleton holding an AK-47 and wearing a turban after a Muslim civil liberties group voiced concern that the target may cause gun owners to have a negative view of all Muslims.

According to the Detroit Free Press, Dawud Walid, the executive director of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, voiced his concerns to the owner of Target Sports, in Royal Oak. After Walid met with the owner, the paper reports, he promised to stop selling the item."

Source


14 comments:

Stan B said...

The target will not cause people to have a "negative view" of muslims.

Blowing up school buses full of children, beheading journalists, honor killing of young females, and allowing a school for girls to burn with the students inside - THAT should do the job just fine, thank you very much!

Anonymous said...

Yes, the shop should instead sell real Muslims for target practice.

Places like the US and Britain are starting to find out what happens when they allow their enemies to live among them. Yes, enemies. The people of both those nations deserve everything that happens to them as a result of their highly misguided sense of "compassion". (see: weakness)

Anonymous said...

Unless and until CAIR condemns the hatred by and support for the radicals for us infidels, encourages Islamic womens rights to equal treatment including an education, driving, voting, etc, states that they want to live in harmony with non-islamic peoples of the world and begin acting accordingly, I won't believe they have honorable intent for anything.

AIB/44

Anonymous said...

Everyone has negtive views of mooseslimes..stinking death loving pigs.

Anonymous said...

How do we know that the targets weren't Sikhs? Don't many Sikhs wear turbans? The simple fact that Muslims are so quick to identify themselves with the image simply means that they are admitting that the image does represent them. If the shoe fits....

Anonymous said...

Can someone please tell me where it says that the 70 virgins will be women?

Stan B said...

Anon 12:51 AM - According to the book "The Trouble with Islam Today," written by a Irshad Manji, the word translated as "virgins" could also be translated as "raisins" - and may refer to a candied delicacy of the 7th Century. These guys may be blowing themselves up for the equivalent of "Fruit Rollups!"

Anonymous said...

You mean like the "virgin" birth in the Bible is a mis-translation of "maiden" and nothing to do with actual virginity, yet many Christians think the virgin-birth of Jesus-the-Christ is fundamental to their faith, and even Jesus' divinity (not that that was agreed upon until much later in Church history!).

Use the Name, Luke said...

Yay… another attack from the resident anti-theist.

Here's the answer.

Those who are opposed to the interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 as a prophetic passage referring to a virgin birth claim that ‘almâ does not mean “virgin,” and that the word used exclusively for “virgin” is the Hebrew word betûlâ. Both of these claims, however, are inaccurate. A careful look at the etymological and semantical aspects of these two words actually documents the fact that there is no single-word-meaning for either Hebrew term.

There is much, much more detail at the link.

Anonymous said...

Luke (our resident pro-theist) only refers to biased sources, and calls all criticism of his religion an "attack". He's hardly better than the muslims who can't stand any questioning of their own religion.

Anonymous said...

Questioning religion is like the little boy in the crowd who asked why the Emperor was parading naked and shocked all the adoring populace who wanted to believe that the Emperor was wearing a magnificient suit of clothes !

Use the Name, Luke said...

What a shocker… The troll pulls out the Genetic Fallacy once again. Boringly predictable. Somebody get me some toothpicks for my eyelids.

It would be more interesting if you actually used a rational argument instead of a known falsehood.

Anonymous said...

It would be more to the point if Luke avoided the ad-hominem fallacy ("trolls", etc.), but of course it only indicates he doesn't have any convincing rebuttal to the actual criticisms of religion.

Anonymous said...

Religion has no rationale except as an emotional crutch (fear of death and fear of life's vicissitudes), and of course used for social control (and to give power, wealth and justification to the elites).